Prison - Cuba - Guantanamo - Should it be closed?
86
Why should we close Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba?
One of the very early commitments that President Barack Obama made to the American public was to permanently close Guantanamo Bay prison.
I believe this decision was made hastily in the wake of the shameful action some of the guards perpetrated upon the detainees in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq which was widely publicized world-wide. That memory lingers...
Punishment has been meted out to those who teased and humiliated the terrorist prisoners with imposed nudity and shameful poses.
The torture techniques ( like water-boarding ) utilized to get information from the terrorists has been halted due to a public outcry against those forms of interrogation. Most people agree that the United States should be a better model for the world with regard to human rights.
It has been proven that getting information from any prisoner through any form of torture rarely gets good and actionable information in any case. Under torture, people will say what they think their interrogators want to hear.
Presidential candidate John McCain was a prisoner of war in Viet Nam for many years. From his status as a U.S. Senator he remains to be a loud voice and prime force against using torture to extract information from prisoners.
Now........are any of these good enough reasons to close Guantanamo Bay prison?
I think not.
We have a long standing arrangement with Cuba and have this base on their shores which has been used as a prison for some time now. It has been developed into a state of the art prison.
It is now being used to hold terrorists that would be happy to kill American citizens......and other citizens around the world for that matter. These are dangerous people!
Few other countries have offered to help house these terrorist prisoners.
About 11 to 14 percent of those that have been released have gone back to their intent of creating more terrorist attacks against innocent people from what I read.
80 million dollars was requested by President Obama to help shut down the prison. 80 million dollars! This is not chicken feed!
Fortunately (from my personal perspective) the Senate overwhelmingly voted against this infusion of money to achieve the goal of closing Guantanamo Bay by the end of this year. This was a united vote by both Republicans and Democrats who do not agree with this hasty move. Obama has already made a speech today trying to influence many into changing their minds.
This is at a time when the economy is suffering and our dollars are already being stretched to the limit.
Why spend more money ( 80 million dollars!) to close down a state of the art prison that is housing terrorist detainees that no State in the U.S. wants and other countries also do not want in their existing prisons?
Only a few countries have offered to take a handful of the prisoners. This will not solve the problem. We need many more countries to offer their services to safely house them where they will not be tortured nor released back onto the streets to do more damage.
Most people are aware that prisoners in current prisons already conduct business from their cells. Do we want people committed to ending our very lives mixing with other criminal elements, perhaps recruiting them to that cause?
Do we want to bring the terrorists into any of our towns or cities ( prisons ) where that town or city might then become a target for riots or even worse?
If in the end Guantanamo Bay prison is shut down, what will happen to that offshore facility?
Personally I believe that closing Guantanamo will in no way advance U.S. national security. In fact, it may have the opposite effect.
Can we afford to take this chance?
Another discussion entirely is presenting charges and having those enemy combatants tried for their alleged crimes. That has nothing to do with where they are detained.
What do you think? Should our Congress abide by the wishes of President Obama and fund the transfer of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba onto our shores where it will incur added cost and be a possible further threat to our security?
- Analysis: Obama defends Guantanamo closing
In soaring rhetoric Thursday, President Barack Obama ran through his logic for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, a sweeping argument against those who claim Americans will be in danger if the jail is shut.
- Closing Guantanamo Bay Prison Could Mean the Release of Yemenis Who Are Unrepentant Terrorists - was
The single biggest opportunity -- and potential difficulty -- for the incoming administration's plan to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, comes from the same group of Yemeni prisoners, who make up fully 40 percent of the detainees...
- Conservative
I recently had a conversation with a Centrist ( a person who tries to stay in the middle of the squabbles between Social Liberals and Conservatives). He's a very nice man, and he said to me, "Conservatives...
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Gitmo has become of symbol of everything American is not suppose to be. All of platitudes begin to ring hollow as long as that place is in operation. We are saying we believe in human rights as long as we don't have to risk anything to achieve them. As soon as it becomes tough we through our values out the window.
Hello thinking out loud, Thanks for your comment.
Hi Pete,
Torture has undoubtedly not only been done in Guantanamo Bay but in other places as well. Hopefully that will now be at an end. The America I love is better than that.
The BIG QUESTION is who will be responsible (and at what cost) for housing those prisoners until they can be tried for their crimes?
Just closing Guantanamo is not an answer as obviously the majority of our Senators who just weighed in with their votes agreed.
This needs to be studied and plans need to be formulated as to how to proceed before we precipitiously do something that may not be as safe for our people and others in the world with these detainees.
It would be wonderful if more countries would step up and agree to take some of those prisoners. They probably don't want them for the same reasons the prison officials in our 50 states do not want them.
My suggestion......... Why not put pressure on the rest of the countries to formulate a plan to have something like a World Court System where terrorists can be tried in front of everyone? Something similar to what they did with the Nazi criminals in the Nuremberg trials...
If there was an International Military Tribunal that could try these detainees publicly, perhaps justice would be served in the end.
This could then be applied to every terrorist from any country. They STILL need to be housed somewhere! Question is where???
While I certainly agree Guantanamo has been a shameful chapter In our history , there Is no doubt that the release of some has already backfired In our face . The NY Times today had a column that talked about 1 In every 7 going back to their previous activities . And as much shame as there Is for us on that ,do not lose sight of the fact most of these guys are not Boy Scouts . So I have no sympathy for their captivity.
Even the Dems no bringing them here stateside Is a career ender.
Hi Tony,
Your points are well taken. Thanks.
I KNEW IT USA SUCKS
Hello SAHIL,
Permit me to disagree with you respectfully. While the U.S.A. may not be perfect, at least we have an open and free society that gets to debate and rectify these things with the input from many participants. Our system of government does not act quickly which can sometimes be frustrating...but in other cases, it may be a blessing in disguise. Discussing all these things and debating them from all angles generally ends up with a consensus that most people can agree with or at least understand better. And if things are wrong, they are often remedied in this way.
Hi Peggy,Thought provoking hub. I will probably get flamed for this one, but as you said - I respectfully disagree on the whole torture thing. I do agree that we shouldn't close gitmo (the true question is 'why close it"?) is it merely the symbolic act of closing it? I mean if President Obama has assured people and basically guaranteed that the so called torture is no longer going on then why close it?
It seems like a waste of tax payers dollars just to make a point.As for the claim that keeping it open has been a recruitment tool for terrorists.... I have news for people that think that.... We were attacked numerous times before gitmo even existed so that argument doesn't hold water (pardon the pun).
As for waterboarding being torture.... We subject our own military personnel to it to condition them against it. Does that mean we are torturing the men and women of our military? And while I know it is popular that memos detailing the interrogation techniques were released, I think it prudent that the information we obtained from the enhanced interrogations should also be made public so we can judge for ourselves if it was worth it.
See the whole point is that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, for example,WAS NOT giving up information. Once he had a little water dribbled on his nose, apparently he felt much more cooperative and gave up actionable intelligence. Now the veracity of that claim is open to debate, but the reason they have not released the intelligence gained from the interrogations (in my opinion)is that it could prove somewhat embarassing if it came out that the intelligence gathered from the waterboarding did in fact save lives.
The claim has been made that we could have obtained the information a different way.... Ok, if that is the case, then why doesn't someone explain HOW else we could have got the information? I expect an answer along the lines of "well I don't know but there must have bene some other way" ... Easy to say; hard to prove.
Nobody cared how we protected the country following 9/11 . We just wanted to feel safe. It is amazing how short our memories are and how fast we seem to forget. The enhanced interrogations ("torture" if you prefer) were used when normal interrogation methods were not working! If it saved lives or even if we thought it MIGHT save lives.... DUNK EM !
To each their own opinion, and in accordance with your previous comment Peggy, that is in fact what makes this country great; that we can debate, have different opinions, and each of us still love and be proud of our country. Sorry for the long comment :)
Very good hub.
Thanks Jimmy, You gave a very thought provoking comment and you can tell that my thoughts are along the same line as yours. It would be a terrific waste of taxpayer dollars to close Gitmo and relocate all those prisoners at great cost and risk.
As to the torture...using coercive methods when we really need information quickly will probably (in some way) always be done. Sleep deprivation...etc.
Compared to being stuck in cages in the ground, being starved, or having heads cut off with cameras rolling........I think that the United States still comes off in a pretty good light compared to many other entities within certain countries.
Thanks for your comment!
SAHIL
permit me to disagree with you disrespectfully. Are you crazy? Terrorist sympathetic? These men would galdly kill you just for being a citizen in a democratic society. I also find it very ironic that you say that. Where else would you rather live? if you said that in a different country, like North Korea, Cuba, Iraq (under Saddam) you would be killed for speaking out against the government. Try to remember this country gave you the right to say stuff like that through the blood of good men. So next time you go bad mouthing America remember all those men who gave their life just for you to spit on this country.
Hello Ty,
I was merely being polite in my response to SAHIL. I have no idea where he lives or why he thinks so badly about the USA. We can only guess.
You are so correct in that we have rights in this country that many other countries do not share. Look at what is happening in Iran right now. People are dying because they are protesting what appears to be an election with unreliable results. And they are attempting to shut off the Internet so that Iranians cannot see nor communicate with the rest of the world from what we are told. So sad.
As I pointed out to him we are free to agree or disagree and in most cases we work through any problems in a peaceable manner.
You are also correct in that IF he is an American and wants to say bad things about us, he has that right because of others who died protecting those rights.
Thank you for adding to this discussion.
Hello again Peggy - another great hub - and I agree with you. You're far more of a lady than I could be, in your response to Sahil, even though he does have the right to say what he thinks. I agree with Ty too, and thoroughly enjoyed reading his response.
And hello to you again, Madame X.
Freedom of Speech is just one of our many freedoms that makes me very happy to be an American.
Thanks
Dear Peggy W, Nice job! I wish things were simple and easy to fix but they're not. To cater to any group who will use our morals against us is like asking them after they've done damage, what would you like for dinner? These morons don't get it and never will. I feel we should give them a dose of their own medicine, lets give them a reason to be afraid. They want to terrify innocent people lets show them what terror is. I understand that innocent people would be hurt, we should remove cities in countries that promote terrorism or harbor terrorists. to do this without any notice after a terrorist attack. The reason I suggest this as a solution is the people in these countries are the ones who have to stop the terrorists in their midst's. We don't know who they are they don't wear uniforms but their countrymen do. We have to show that its to their advantage to behave and police themselves. Harsh, yes, but is being nice to them working? Peace
Hello sneakorocksolid,
Thank you for adding to this discussion but I could not disagree with you more. Saying that we should remove cities in countries where terrorists hide despite civilian casualties is not a solution. The civilians do not always know the terrorists among them.
Example: Should we have eliminated the city of Oklahoma City because of what our own home grown terrorist did there? Were the residents of Oklahoma City at fault for not being able to identify his madness when he bombed that building killing men, women and children?
There has to be a better solution than that!
I would recommend boning up on the history of Guantanamo Bay and how the US military came to preside over this Cuban land. Should the United States have a state of the art detention center for dangerous criminals with ill intent? Absolutely. Does the United States have the right to jurisdiction over Cuba's Guantanamo Bay? Absolutely not. These are completely different arguments that are closely tied together and as a result, the reasoning of the first often coalesces with the second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban-American_Treaty
If I came to your house with my fingers gently tapping my holstered gun and said to you, "You really should lease that spare bedroom of yours to me at *** price" How would you respond? Would you feel intimidated? Would you tell me to leave? Would you accept?
I'd also recommend reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_
Basically, we have reached a point in our humanity where society as a whole acknowledges that treaties cannot be made through threat of force. That such acts are immoral. This is precisely what we did in I believe 1903 or 1904, but this was well before the inception of the law of treaties which, specifically states that it does not apply retroactively. And so, we are forced to conclude that although the world took a big step forward in 1969 in terms of a nations rights to sovereignty, such rights do not exist in Cuba simply because the US had forced its 'treaty' on Cuba before the law of treaties was established? Thats absurd. American imperialism at its finest.
Hello Seth,
Thank you for offering more information on the background of Guantanamo Bay coming into U.S. hands. I read both of the links that you offered. Interesting facts as to how treaties are now made.
As you pointed out, treaties made prior to the time of the new Vienna Convention on Treaties are not grandfathered in to the new arrangements. Thus, the treaty made for U.S. possession of Guantanamo Bay still holds.
As to all treaties being made between sovereign states with no extenuating circumstances (i.e. force) I seriously doubt that seemingly nice goal is as easy to accomplish as it would seem.
Why do people enter treaties? Someone is generally giving up or acquiescing a bit more or less than the other partners in that treaty. It may be for the greater good of both or everyone involved. A treaty by its very nature has some give and take in it.
The U.S. was at the time of the treaty with Cuba, the more powerful force as it still is today. Again, seldom are treaty signatures between totally equal partners. Countries of the world are not all the same.
As to a naval base containing a prison...I do not know this factually, but I would guess that there are containment cells on other bases...navy, army, etc. That to me is not so much of a stretch as to use of the land via the treaty.
So it still comes down to this... Where should those terrorist detainees be held? No easy answer.
I really appreciate your input and different slant on this discussion. Thanks!
One of the problems I have is that I do not think the question of "Waterboarding" has been settled.The previous administration felt it was harsh but not torture. Nobody has actually established that it is torture except reiterating the claim until everyone believes it. One of the arguments is that it was outlawed ever since..." but, I believe, that was a different procedure by the same name. One thing that bothers me is the jumping to conclusion with proper examination of things. Too much of the "because I said so". Otherwise I aree with everything you say.
Hi dahoglund,
I'm far from an expert with regard to waterboarding or other issues like that.
I heard on CSPAN last week that it will cost the City of New York something like 85 MILLION DOLLARS to provide extra security to try those terrorists in our civil court system.
The cost ALONE seems preposterous when we are in this current recession not to mention all the other downside risks involved. For instance...making New York more of a target; potentially exposing some of our top security...CIA or FBI or other spy measures as to how we catch these bad guys; giving the terrorists a great platform to spew their hatred of the U.S. and potentially recruit more terrorists, etc.
Guess this could be another hub...
Seems to me that the money cost ALONE would be reason enough not to be doing it this way instead of a military tribunal...or better yet (in my fantasy dream world) a WORLD COURT such as the Nuremburg Trials provided.
Another eye opener I heard on CSPAN with regard to trying the terrorists in New York. One of them is Canadian and I listened to some of the justices on the CANADIAN SUPREME COURT and the gist of what they said was that if they do not like the outcome...they can petition the U.S. to return that person to Canada!!!
Why can't we let our good northern neighbor try him in the first place saving the U.S. taxpayers some expense???
Absolutely AMAZING!
I said at the start that there are no easy answers and that I think Guantanamo should be left to function as is...not on U.S. soil. And the so called "answers" I am hearing...I surely do not like thus far.
What do you think?
Hi Peggy W
I just feel that they want to close it without giving the American people any good reason or argument for doing so.There is no logic to what they are doing instead. I did not mean to be overly critical. This waterboarding issue seems to be a pet peeve of mine.As i said, aside from that issue I agree with you.
Hi dahoglund,
We are in total agreement!
thinking out loud says:
6 months ago
Short answer, we shouldn't.