1 of 25

Yes

Write now Article Tools

There is a well-rehearsed bias that claims that liberals are "soft" on what ever matter Republicans want some leeway on at the moment. I am a liberal, but I am not "soft." Guantanamo Bay is a prime example of what is wrong with our counter-terrorism efforts and why the Republicans have dragged this nation head long, against all odds, into losing the fight against terrorism.

One justification for Guantanamo Bay is that it is needed for "intelligence" purposes. If that is so, our intelligence is years out of date. For if we depend on the knowledge of men incarcerated at Guantanamo, we our fools. If the prisoners tell us the truth, events will already have overtaken what little they know. If the prisoners lie, we really don't have a context to measure their knowledge against. It is therefore useless as an intelligence asset.

Another justification for Guantanamo Bay is "justice." That would be fine if we adjudicated them rapidly, but reality is far from justice. If Guantanamo were Nurenburg, Goering would have died of old age instead of killing himself on the eave of his execution. And at least the Nazis got some semblance of due process. If you're Arab and incarcerated it's just too bad. Ironically, the military tribunals that were supposed to facilitate rapid processing have done just the opposite. At least in a traditional federal criminal court, there would have been a speedy trial rule compelling the trial to move forward within 180 days. No such luck if you're a prisoner at Guantanamo. I like my justice served "cold" with a swift dose of due process. Convict or acquit, jail or execute the guilty, release those acquitted. It sounds pretty simple, but the fiasco at Guantanamo is not serving out justice, just expensive time.

The final justification for Guantanamo Bay is "safety." Minor problem-Guantanamo Bay and are other misguided actions in the world have, by the lastest intelligence estimated, increased recruiting for world terror. We'd be safer if Guantanamo had never been.

So is this "soft?" Only if you consider recruiting Arabic and Farsi speakers (instead of driving them away in fear or into the arms of our enemies), "soft." The reality is that our intelligence "challenges" have a decades-long history of neglecting human intelligence resources while over-spending on signal intelligence. The best strategy would be to "penetrate" these organizations with willing Arabic and Farsi speakers and then "devastate" them at the time and place of our choosing. This would be the razor-sharp edge I would deploy against terror. Instead, we play a deadly (for our troops) game of blind-man's-bluff in the streets of Iraq.

Is it "soft" to try accused criminals and punish the guilty while releasing the innocent? Only if you completely despise the rule of law. In which case, the terrorists have already won.

Is it "soft" to seek the implementation of a program that really tears the heart out of terrorist organizations? Only if you're a Republican too feebly to realize how close to the abyss our President has dragged us.

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

Add your voice

Know something about Should the US close the military prison on Guantanamo Bay? ?
We want to hear your view. Write now!