Don't Close Guantanamo

Great job, Obama! You've finally succeeded in getting somebody else to take some of those Guantanamo detainees off your hands. Your masterful diplomacy, although strangely ignored by more than 100 of our petitioned allies, has swayed the tiny island country of Palau to generously take a small group of the least dangerous detainees. Perhaps also helpful was the mere fee of $200 million we're paying them, which—as the Wall Street Journal points out—is a practical $10,000 for every citizen of Palau. On the heels of that good news comes yet more: Saudi Arabia is willing to take almost 100 of the most dangerous detainees. Details of that negotiation still to come.

I can't help but wonder if the same protesters who raged over America's abuse of detainees in Guantanamo will express the same level of outrage for the inevitably much worse treatment to come from Saudi Prisons. As one distressed Yemini family member of a detainee worried, it is unlikely the prisoners will have access to the American judicial system (let alone the American media) in Saudi Arabia. As Haitham Al-Marwalah, 16, brother of detainee Mohammed al-Marwalah, was quoted in the Yemin Times, "... we think Saudi Arabia is not fair."

But who ever said being fair had anything to do with it? Throughout the Guantanamo saga, I've struggled to understand why it's worth closing one of the most scrutinized and secure prisons in the world—especially in the aftermath of such intense public scrutiny.  Symbolically it makes sense for Obama (I mean, Guantanamo is probably the only prison in the world that most people know by name), since once he closes it he's "solved the problem" simply by removing it from public radar. But in terms of rationality and national security, it makes just about as much sense as shutting a school because of inappropriate behavior from a teacher. Fire the teacher—definitely. But close the school?

Being president is about making hard decisions that are best for the country—rather than what's best for your personal image. I'm trying to be optimistic that Obama's Guantanamo grandstanding isn't indicitive of what motivates all his decision-making, but it's not the easiest position to hold after watching him be willing to gamble away taxpayer dollars, detainee welfare, and national security interests this time around.

Tags: Guantanamo, national security, Obama, taxes, torture

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Abigail Pilgrim Documentary film producer and freelance writer.

Comments

Anothers shoes

By: alovelything | Sat, 06/13/2009 - 08:52

It might be helpful to understand the issue if you turn it around. Imagine how horrified Americans would be if our citizens were locked up for 7 to 8 years by another country with no charges, no trials, no chance to prove innocence. Put Americans in the shoes of those detainees and I think you'll feel much differently.

That's my first point. Secondly, I'm disturbed by the assertion in this post that the detainees somehow belong to Obama as if he is the one who created the problem. We know that's not the case. So, to say "taken off Obama hands" isn't intellectually accurate.

America's military chiefs for the most part agree that the prison is bad international relations, a stain on America's principles and values.

Holding prisoners of war is one thing. Unfortunately, too many of the people in Guantanamo were rounded up by other countries' police departments on nothing more than a neighbor's accusation that the suspect is involved in terrorism.

I agree, go struggle some more

By: Kozmic Blues | Fri, 06/12/2009 - 13:26

The reason none of those other allies would take the innocent Uighurs while the Palau would, is because Palau isn't afraid of being on the wrong side of China. The rest of the world owes them money, and you don't let your bookies enemies hide out in your basement when you owe him money, you know? And Saudi Arabia is definitely a crazy, radical place, and they may well not be treated well, but on the other hand they are experts in "de-radicalizing" violent extremists through faculties that teach comparatively moderate Islam and then provide money, jobs, and housing when they leave to assure they don't have reason to return to blowing stuff up. So it's not a perfect solution and I hope that part of the negotiations are to put these people in these facilities and not in prisons, but in the case of the 'most potentially dangerous people that we've waterboarded too many times to actually prosecute' it might be the only solution. I do agree on one point, closing Gitmo doesn't solve the problem. There are still secret prisons that people don't know by name that need to be closed and shady deals dropping people off in countries that will torture that should be stopped. That's an arguement for ending those practices, not against closing gitmo.

The reasoning in this article

By: lightening | Fri, 06/12/2009 - 12:41

The reasoning in this article seems to me to be rather poorly thought out, like brimful I agree that Pilgrim needs to "struggle" with the issue some more if the fruits of her cognitive efforts lead her to conclude that Guantanamo is the only place on Earth capable of holding these people.
I personally have long struggled with the notion that the American people are so keen on having the individuals in Guantanamo detained, as long as it is not in their country. Heavens no, that would be too dangerous. Let's put them somewhere else. US use of Guantanamo Bay is thanks to a treaty signed in 1903, alleged by many to have been forced upon Cuba by Prez Theodore Roosevelt. Regardless, the treaty allows for use of Guantanamo Bay for "coaling or naval stations only", qualifications that a detention center lacks.
If the US and its allies in fight against terrorism insist upon detaining these people, they should able to make arrangements for their captivity on their own land or the land of a willing partner.

Where to start?

By: brimful | Fri, 06/12/2009 - 16:20

"Throughout the Guantanamo saga, I've struggled to understand why it's worth closing one of the most scrutinized and secure prisons in the world—especially in the aftermath of such intense public scrutiny."

Nearly every proponent of closing Gitmo - from Obama to John McCain - has advanced more or less the same argument: it has become a symbol of torture and illegal detention. In the eyes of the world it is not a prison but a dungeon. That symbolism is so potent that its continued existence in any form would be an embarrassment to our allies and a powerful recruiting tool for terrorists, and would make us all less safe. Furthermore, existing "super max" federal prisons in the US already hold dangerous prisoners including convicted terrorists, and have done so for years and years with no escapes - none. So the benefits of closing Gitmo vastly exceed the costs.

You may not agree with that argument, but the fact that you didn't even bring it up suggests that you haven't been paying attention. At all. You might want to go "struggle" with this question some more.

Also, your framing of the matter as a choice between closing Gitmo and setting free the 17 Chinese Muslims who will be sent to Palau is interesting - and wrong. Even if Gitmo were kept open we could hardly keep them there, because even the Bush administration concluded that they were absolutely innocent and posed no threat to anyone! Calling these men simply "the least dangerous detainees" is disingenous in the extreme. Again, they are innocent. Perhaps you are willing to argue that any soul unlucky enough to pass the gates of Gitmo must be held there forever, overwhelming evidence of their innocence be damned?