Should the US close the military prison on Guantanamo Bay?

No

1 of 19

by Joyce Gray

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Should the US close the military prison on Guantanamo Bay?

The obvious and easy answer is "yes", but after a careful examination of the question, the better answer is a resounding "no".

After years of negative publicity, the first reaction of politicians worried about public opinion is simply to close it. But a prison with another name and in another place would still have to address the same problems and serve the same functions. This is a case where perception has moved so far from fact that the truth is lost.

Let's look at the reality of the situation:

Guantanamo Bay Prison is located at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, which is under the control of the U.S. military, but is on Cuban soil. This provides proximity to the continental United States, but the isolation of the military installations there, and the natural barrier of water and distance, protect the U.S. from any threat from prisoners or escapees.

Controversial questioning techniques such as waterboarding have never been employed at Guantanamo Bay. Some prisoners had experienced such practices in prisons (some of which were not under the control of the U.S.) in the Middle East before they ever arrived at Guantanamo.

In 2003, when the prison there began to receive a flow of prisoners taken in combat in Iraq and elsewhere, the classification and treatment of those prisoners had not been clearly defined. How does a massive military, guided by the Geneva Convention and traditional codes of conduct, confront an insurgent enemy which disregards all legal restraints and respects no authority?

Prison personnel had little time to adapt. In the intervening years, every aspect of prison life has been scrutinized and codified for humane and fair treatment. In fact, under the intense scrutiny of human rights groups, the news media, and government officials, prisoners at Guantanamo Bay likely have more protection from abuse than elsewhere in the U.S.

Some prisoners have taken advantage of such scrutiny to make the lives of their guards, who are bound by rigid rules, miserable. For example, they use water bottles as receptacles for their waste, and then spray it on the guards. As a U.S. citizen, try that in the county jail and see how you come out! Such behavior has been underreported by the media, perhaps because it flies in the face of the popular campaign to smear Guantanamo Bay Prison.

Though some of the prisoners in Guantanamo may have simply been swept up in the activities of a terrorist group or insurgency, many of them are hardened criminals dedicated to killing and destruction. Less than 250 prisoners remain at Guantanamo. They include the infamous "Gitmo 5", who have publicly taken pride in their part in the deaths of thousands on 9/11.

Some of those who have been cleared or might be cleared in the future cannot be released to their own countries because of the likelihood they will be imprisoned, tortured, or even killed. So protecting them by holding them at Guantanamo until a solution can be reached makes us the bad guys?

Also telling is the loud criticism of our allies for holding these prisoners at Guantanamo, but the lack of substantial offers to take any of them off our hands. Hypocrisy, anyone?

The prisoners, labeled as "enemy combatants" under the Geneva Convention, were to be held until the end of the conflict, as in prior wars. However, this conflict may well go on for decades. Our collective sense of fairness, and much of the clamor from human rights groups, calls for the United States to either charge and convict these individuals within a reasonable time, or release them.

The difficulty lies in how to try them and what rules of evidence to use. They are not United States citizens entitled to the rule of law in civilian courts; they are "enemy combatants" taken into custody during war. Some process must be employed to determine which of these people posed a threat to our country or still pose a threat, and should be punished for it. Military tribunals would provide a forum for fair treatment under the Geneva Convention, but would protect the intelligence sources of the U.S. and its allies from public exposure.

Every United States citizen owes it to themselves and these prisoners to educate themselves on Guantanamo Bay and related issues, and to consider the sources of the information. It all comes down to this: who do you trust more, the word of the U.S. government and military, or that of some of the most dangerous, violent, and unscrupulous criminals in the world?

But regardless of how we decide to process these prisoners, they must be held for a time at some location. Moving them from Guantanamo Bay only relocates the problem; it does not solve it. A rose by any other name...

Learn more about this author, Joyce Gray.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.