Team Obama Ponders What To Do About Guantanamo Bay
President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is pondering the future of Guantanamo Bay, the highly controversial prison for terrorism suspects used by the Bush administration to hold these suspects indefinitely.
Obama pledged to close the prison during the campaign, but now that he has won the election, he and his team are wondering what to do with the suspects being held there. Many of them cannot be released without endangerous national security.
Back in late October Obama said that he wanted to close ‘Gitmo’ “as quickly as we can do prudently.”
“I am not going to give a time certain because I think what we have to do is evaluate all those who are still being held in Gitmo,” he said. “We have to put in place appropriate plans to make sure they are tried, convicted and punished to the full extent of the law, and that’s going to require, I think, a review of the existing cases, which I have not had the opportunity to do.”
Officials close to Obama now told CNN that ‘the incoming administration is pondering whether to try some of the Guantanamo Bay inmates in existing federal courts; set up a special national security court to deal with cases involving the most sensitive intelligence information; or release others.’
This scenario ‘would eliminate the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to prosecute some of the top al Qaeda figures held at the facility, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — the lead plotter of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.’
Although many American liberals and moderates will support Obama’s plans for Guantanamo Bay, regardless of which of the mentioned plans he decides to implement, some conservative critics believe that closing the prison on Cuba will endanger national security.
Foreigners such as myself, though, will likely agree with liberals and moderates, arguing that Guantanamo Bay has been a black chapter in America’s history. If one is serious about improving America’s image in the world, Guantanamo Bay has to be closed. And soon.
It’s interesting how quickly it becomes apparent that criticizing the status quo and actually doing something about it are two different things. The problem becomes much more complex when one looks at what is really involved; Ed Morrissey had a good piece about the idea that Obama might attempt another type of court to try some of the detainees- why would anyone think that a third attempt would pass muster after two attempts by the Bush administration were rejected by SCOTUS? How in the world can anyone grant Constitutional rights to these detainees while also preserving the national security interests regarding intel?
Michael, Okay, so you close Gitmo? With what do you replace it?
I’m afraid that you don’t understand the purpose of Guantanamo. It is not to press criminal cases. It is not to punish. It is to detain and only to detain.
If those illegal combatants were actual soldiers of an actual army, they would be held just as they are now, in a POW camp where they would be treated exactly as they are treated right now. Why should those who intentionally violate both the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Conventions be treated better than legitimate prisoners of war?
If we can not detain armed combatants during a time of war (a war that, by the way, we did not declare but instead was declared on us) without putting them immediately into our civil criminal justice system, thus crippling both it and our ability to reasonably prosecute the war, we are left with only one option.
I don’t think you’d approve of that one either.
So tell me, if we can not have this incredibly reasonable and unprecedentedly humane “black mark”, then what in the world can we have?
So far as I can tell this all came about because it was falsely reported that there was already a clear plan laid out as to what to do with the detainees, especially in regards to what to do with the more sensitive cases. The Obama team has simply come out and said that though Obama still fully intends to close Guantanamo, the full details of what to do with the detainees will not be fleshed out until he gets his legal and national security teams together.
So since the problem is difficult you simply decide that being detained and sent to Guantanamo instantly means you are a high-risk detainee and can be held without any review of your situation or any guarantee of a fair trial? Then, when it turns out that you were literally a nobody in the wrong place at the wrong time, what? Oops, sorry about the years in prison and that whole torture thing, our mistake. No hard feelings?
Pardon me for thinking we don’t have to sell our ideological soul to the altar of our supposed security. There are supposedly already mechanisms to deal with fair trials that involve sensitive security information. What I find totally unacceptable is that we are treating prisoners at Guantanamo as convicted criminals and not as what they are: people whose actual implication in actions against our country has not yet been determined in most cases. What few cases have gone to trial have often shown that we were holding and mistreating people who were barely foot soldiers, not people who were real threats to the US or who had huge secrets. The fact we hold people there indefinitely without trial or the most basic of rights serves only to send the message to the world that America stands on it’s principles and ideals…until it gets scared.
So since the problem is difficult you simply decide that being detained and sent to Guantanamo instantly means you are a high-risk detainee and can be held without any review of your situation or any guarantee of a fair trial?
Gee, did I say that? No, looks like I didn’t.
…”Then, when it turns out that you were literally a nobody in the wrong place at the wrong time, what? Oops, sorry about the years in prison and that whole torture thing, our mistake. No hard feelings? ”
Aside from the “torture thing” as you call it, this happens to US citizens in our current court system. (Not a very convincing argument.
It only says that to people who have bought the anti-war propaganda about Gitmo. History, however, is stuffed full of examples of civilized nations who have held illegal combatants until the end of hostilities in complete accordance with the Geneva Conventions, which is exactly what we have been doing.
Indeed, we have gone well beyond any legal obligations we have had. We have made the Koran proof from any sort of mistreatment, intentional or otherwise – the only book that enjoys such protection by US law. Prisoners at Gitmo routinely leave weighing more (thanks to the halal meals we prepare for them regularly) than when they were detained. We even refuse to send detainees back to their home countries because there is some indication that they might possibly be mistreated when they get there.
As I said earlier, we have two options with illegal combatants. We can hold them at Gitmo and try them at our leisure or we can try them on the battlefield as they have been taken. The latter choice leaves us with but two options – let them go or shoot them right there. I prefer what we have been doing. No nation has ever treated illegal combatants who specifically violate the Geneva Conventions more humanely nor with more deference.
C. Stanley, you’re right that I took a few too many liberties with your comment, I apologize. I do think, however, that it can’t be above our capabilities to give fair trials and to ensure our safety at the same time.
The fact that prisoners being held indefinitely with no charges until “the conflict is over” (presumably when there isn’t terrorism? You mean never?) “get hot meals” strikes me as a very very poor excuse. Tell you what, tell any American prisoner if they are willing to trade places with Gitmo detainees. They get the hot meals and the intact Koran, but are not guaranteed a trial date, may not be allowed into their own trial and their lawyers may e denied almost any access to evidence. Oh, and they may be submitted to “advanced interrogation tactics” to get them to confess. Get back to me when you find someone willing to do the trade.
This isn’t even a particularly partisan issue anymore. Both McCain and Obama pledged to close Guantanamo, based on pretty much the same reasons. They couldn’t debate it because they actually agree.
You make it sound like the government is setting them up for a life in the U.S. after it being found out they can’t go back. That’d be nice, but it’s often not the case.
In many cases, they’re not allowed here, either. And in some cases, nobody else will take them. So where do they go? You guessed it. Back to Guantanamo.
Claudia is right in the last paragraph. If McCain were in Obama’s position right now, he’d be looking at what to do with the prisoners there, too.