Should the US close the military prison on Guantanamo Bay?

Yes

5 of 25

by Hibernianscribe

• 

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

President Barack Obama, a constitutional lawyer, closed Guantanamo Bay prison camp in January 2009 and ordered all criminal trials to cease whilst closing secret CIA detention centres long denied by his predecessor.

In January 2002, the Bush administration created a detention camp at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba to imprison the worst terrorism suspects. This facility has become an embarrassing stain on the reputation of the United States. Some inmates have endured more than six years detention without charge or trial, with Guantanamo symbolising Washington's total disregard for international human rights in the apparent aim of fighting terrorism. Today, even President Bush says he wants to shut it down.

Former Defence Secretary Rumsfeld, claims that half the 778 detainees have been released and many others deserve to be, but that a hard core group of some 150 who have allegedly plotted or committed acts of terrorism or would do so now if they could, now, have to be tried. Should these inmates be given criminal trials? Or, should they be subjected to administrative or preventive detention? Can the United States criminal justice system handle terrorism or should due process be sacrificed in the name of security?

Many countries must deal with balancing national security and the rights of the accused. Authoritarian states summarily detain dangerous suspects e.g. Malaysia and Singapore. Among liberal democracies the U.K. and France are the most aggressive in detaining terrorism suspects. The U.K. interned hundreds of suspected IRA terrorists during the 1970s, however, this generated sympathy and encouraged recruitment. The British Ministry of Defence admitted it was a major mistake. At present the U.K. proposes detaining terrorism suspects for up to 42 days. The French government requires the filing of criminal charges within 6 days, with France remaining within the criminal justice paradigm.

The United States interned U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War 2 a notorious example but a rare exception. It is the category of combatants that has left Washington in controversial legal territory. Every country allows captured combatants to be detained without trial until the end of a war. President Bush has used that power to justify Guantanamo detentions. Guantanamo cannot be made a regular part of the U.S. governments arsenal. U.S. courts are fully capable of addressing today's terrorist threat. Yet, conventional courts make it more difficult to obtain information from terrorists and may reveal secret sources and intelligence gathering methods.

Criminal prosecution of of terrorism suspects is not a perfect system. Not all suspects can be prosecuted. However a policy of preventive detention poses greater dangers. Untested evidence may lead to detaining entirely innocent suspects. The general public may not cooperate with counter-terrorist organisations. Suspects may glorify in being designated as combatants even though they are nothing of the kind.

The U.S. criminal justice system has an excellent track record and its well tested procedures make it an infinitely better option than preventive detention. Guantanamo Bay is an affront to basic due process human rights. Close Guantanamo Bay.

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