Divide the remaining 68 among the fifty states. Surely, there is one super-max cell available in each state, and two in the larger states. This will close Gitmo and keep the most dangerous of those left isolated from their colleagues.
3
Dick Cheney supports keeping Gitmo open. Well, if Dick Cheney - who should be stating his opinions from behind a bulletproof plastic cell at The Hague - was for sunshine, I'd be opposed. That man has done more than any single person to scar our values and history.
10
Only 127 left?
Send them off to a SuperMax and close Gitmo.
Done and done.
Send them off to a SuperMax and close Gitmo.
Done and done.
3
'Stain on America'? Have you been to ground zero in lower Manhattan?
2
Yes, I have. Ground Zero is a wound -- something we did not do to ourselves. Guantanamo is a stain -- something we could clean up if we so chose.
7
Closing Guantanamo Bay will help the United States restore the respect of our allies. However, closing Guantanamo Bay will have no impact whatsoever on jihadist recruitment. The jihadist complaint against the United States and Western democracy is not that we have violated our own norms. It is that democracy itself and the laws by which we govern ourselves are a violation of Allah's law and therefore wrong. Removing Guantanamo Bay from an infinite list of complaints against the West still leaves an infinite list for the jihadists to draw from.
1
Mr. Sloan lives in a theoretical world in which he can count someone as a recidivst only if they have a youtube video showing them shooting an AK-47 while holding a dated copy of the NYT. I'd guess if you could actually measured the recidivist rate that it would exceed 30%. The US criminal recidivism rate is somewhere around 65%! I'd suspect that this is similar. The other point he glosses over is he feels no responsibility when the detainee goes back and kills more people. The obsession over Guantanamo is a sideshow.
1
Why should our policy be based on your (admitted) "guess" and what you "suspect"?
2
The choir of objectors opposted to closing of Gitmo have ulterior motives must be more than, to sew fear, and consistent objection of anything that the non-white guy is for.
Why are they supporting the terrorists by maintaining its number one recruiting tool?
Why are they supporting the terrorists by maintaining its number one recruiting tool?
3
There is, of course, the alternative of trying the remaining detainees for war crimes before a military tribunal similar to the Nuremberg court. If the government cannot prove a case, release the defendant. If they can, hang the convicted terrorist.
4
If Terrorists in Guantanamo are muderers we captured in battle, why not try them in civilian courts or military tribunals. Remember, they are by definition murderers. They do not wear uniforms or conform to conventions agreed to after WWII. It is not rational to let murderers involved in nine eleven go just so the left can violate public opinion, law and convention to nullify peace niks.
Why not put them through trials?
Why not put them through trials?
More than a third of Gtimo detainees return to the battlefield. The ones left in Gitmo are the worse of the worse and therefore the most dangerous and most likely to return to terrorism.
So, we should let them to go because it is expensive? How expensive is the damage of dozens of car bombs or suicide bombers? Or, how expensive is locating them after they return to the battlefield and hitting them with a maverick missile?
Gitmo is the best recruiting tool of terrorism? No. Their best recruiting tool is the success of ISIS. So, let's not send ISIS reinforcements from Gitmo.
This idea that if we close Gitmo, that this will some how appease terrorists is not only absurd but dangerous. Liberals seem to think that terrorism is caused by America's actions. That is wrong. Islamic terrorists hate us because they hate our civilization -- individuality, freedom of religion, emancipation of women, etc. It is not about Gitmo or our support of Israel.
So, we should let them to go because it is expensive? How expensive is the damage of dozens of car bombs or suicide bombers? Or, how expensive is locating them after they return to the battlefield and hitting them with a maverick missile?
Gitmo is the best recruiting tool of terrorism? No. Their best recruiting tool is the success of ISIS. So, let's not send ISIS reinforcements from Gitmo.
This idea that if we close Gitmo, that this will some how appease terrorists is not only absurd but dangerous. Liberals seem to think that terrorism is caused by America's actions. That is wrong. Islamic terrorists hate us because they hate our civilization -- individuality, freedom of religion, emancipation of women, etc. It is not about Gitmo or our support of Israel.
"They hate our freedoms," Mr. Bush proclaimed, as he and his party proceeded to take them away.
Who was the appeaser agan?
Who was the appeaser agan?
2
It would be a fitting sequel to this article if Cliff Sloan could be prevailed on to answer this question - one that has been asked repeatedly but has never been resolved: Why has cleared detainee Shaker Aamer not yet been released?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/20/guantanamo-shaker-aamer-london
Thank you.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/20/guantanamo-shaker-aamer-london
Thank you.
1
Supposedly, the CIA handed out barrels of cash to people, encouraging them to turn in terrorists post 9/11. Among poverty stricken Afghans and Iraqis, with their uneducated, 1,000-year-grudge mentality, a man would be tempted to turn in a neighbor he simply did not like. It sickens me to think of how many innocent people wound up in that hell hole. When the last detainee leaves, let Guantanamo stand for the ages; do not tear it down. Let it stand as a symbol of how wayward a country can be when bad people make bad decisions. Have Dick Cheney's name emblazoned on Guantanamo's front gate in neon. Add a place on its walls for the names of the torturers and doctors and psychiatrists who abetted them. Someday, when people tour Guantanamo, like Alcatraz, they can study those names.
7
If trading 5 (!) high-level Taliban for one U.S. Army deserter is an example of how President Obama intends to empty the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay...keep it open.
That's what virtually every poll on the subject suggests that U.S. citizens want, isn't it?
That's what virtually every poll on the subject suggests that U.S. citizens want, isn't it?
"..keep it open.."
Better to close it and realize the cost saving..
Rather than satisfy a Republican whim to mollycoddle these prisoners in Guantanamo, send them to jails on the US mainland and let them mingle with the general prison population which may include members of the La Eme, the Aryan Brotherhood and/or the United Blood Nation.
Better to close it and realize the cost saving..
Rather than satisfy a Republican whim to mollycoddle these prisoners in Guantanamo, send them to jails on the US mainland and let them mingle with the general prison population which may include members of the La Eme, the Aryan Brotherhood and/or the United Blood Nation.
1
First, there are now many corporations that greatly benefit from a continuously-escalating War on Terror, and therefore benefit from keeping Guantanamo open to inflame enemies. Campaign donations from lobbyists representing those interests possibly contribute to Congressional intransigence.
Second, releasing even the detainees cleared of anti-American involvement long ago carries a risk. But it's a risk for which those who created Guantanamo and prevented its closing are fully responsible. Those detainees might not have been at war with America when they entered the gulag. But years of indefinite detention (and possible torture) without charges have given them good reason to hate America. They would be susceptible to jihadist recruiters, and thus a possible threat.
Helping corporations in the privatized War on Terror enrich themselves is not an acceptable reason to keep Guantanamo open. But until we remove the corrupting influence money on American politics, it will remain an important factor. There is something to be said for allowing the intractable problem to solve itself by keeping the detainees physically healthy until they die of natural causes. But the risk of maintaining Guantanamo as a focal point for jihadists is greater than the risk of released detainees possibly acting on their hatred of America.
The most serious risk is that the people who created the gulag will never be held accountable for violating America's fundamental principles.
Second, releasing even the detainees cleared of anti-American involvement long ago carries a risk. But it's a risk for which those who created Guantanamo and prevented its closing are fully responsible. Those detainees might not have been at war with America when they entered the gulag. But years of indefinite detention (and possible torture) without charges have given them good reason to hate America. They would be susceptible to jihadist recruiters, and thus a possible threat.
Helping corporations in the privatized War on Terror enrich themselves is not an acceptable reason to keep Guantanamo open. But until we remove the corrupting influence money on American politics, it will remain an important factor. There is something to be said for allowing the intractable problem to solve itself by keeping the detainees physically healthy until they die of natural causes. But the risk of maintaining Guantanamo as a focal point for jihadists is greater than the risk of released detainees possibly acting on their hatred of America.
The most serious risk is that the people who created the gulag will never be held accountable for violating America's fundamental principles.
11
is the risk of constitutional justice for those who created this gulag not the real reason to keep Guantanamo going and denying due process for the detainees? Just follow the trail of responsibility to realize what the stakes are?
2
Obama had signed order to close Guantanamo in January 2009. In 2011 he abandoned the closure plan after Congress blocked him from bringing terror suspects before US courts, who have to face trials at Guantánamo.
In 2013 The House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill that blocked Obama from closing Guantanamo.
Now that the GOP controls the Congress, the US will have to hang on to Guantanamo until the last breath of the last detainee.
In 2013 The House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill that blocked Obama from closing Guantanamo.
Now that the GOP controls the Congress, the US will have to hang on to Guantanamo until the last breath of the last detainee.
4
If it was such a good idea why didn't the Administration accomplish it in 2009 when they controlled congress? You could make an argument for breaking up the concentration of prisoners and scattering them around the country to keep them from communicating with each other. But local populaces seem disturbed by the possibility of terrorists coming to a prison near them: NIMBY?
I'm concerned about the title of the piece. Transferring out the last detainee does not close the detention facility. Closing the detention facility does not close the naval base. Closing the naval base does not return the land it stands on to Cuban control. And returning the land to Cuba does not close the province and the city of Guantánamo. We can't "close Guantánamo."
Maybe this is just a technical quibble, but it brings into question the scope of the author's knowledge.
Maybe this is just a technical quibble, but it brings into question the scope of the author's knowledge.
Relax. It's a metonym.
2
It brings into question not only his knowledge but also his will to be open and truthful. Still too risky and exposed?*
"the deep stain on our standing in the world is more dangerous than any individual approved for transfer"
We have more stains on our standing than a sewer worker's overalls. And it's always after the fact—many years after—that we acknowledge the wrongdoing, long after the real perpetrators have escaped the clutches of justice. Yet, knowing that, we allow our legislators and executives to seal their records for decades. They know they're criminals; otherwise, why hide the truth? Hypocrite, thy name is USA.
We have more stains on our standing than a sewer worker's overalls. And it's always after the fact—many years after—that we acknowledge the wrongdoing, long after the real perpetrators have escaped the clutches of justice. Yet, knowing that, we allow our legislators and executives to seal their records for decades. They know they're criminals; otherwise, why hide the truth? Hypocrite, thy name is USA.
4
The continuing existence of Guantanamo makes me embarrassed to be an American, it needs to be closed as soon as possible, to put an end on our torture regime. Over the years, so many politicians have opposed moving prisoners out of Guantanamo into existing prisons in the US so these prisoners could be put on trial and those truly guilty would be sorted out from those who were just caught up in the chaos after 9-11 and our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. To be honest, our failure to close Guantanamo after a dozen years, and our resort to torture, tell the world that we are now a weaker nation that can be easily frightened. Are we no longer committed to the rule of law?
7
OK, let's keep it simple: the fact that Dick Cheney is against closing Guantanamo means I'm for closing it. I'll even go further than that: let's return Guantanamo back to Cuba. We don't own it anyway, and we are there only by virtue of a treaty with Spain. It is another legacy of a colonial USA dominating the Southern Continent.
6
The responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect Americans. If Guantanamo accomplishes a useful function, closing it is not a reasonable goal.
The path to closing it is not more important than saving American lives.
NYTimes has its priorities mixed up.
The path to closing it is not more important than saving American lives.
NYTimes has its priorities mixed up.
Thank you, Cliff Sloan, for your splendid public service. I wish you could stay on the job.....
KP
KP
4
Mr. Sloan's assertions (as the SME in this area) are relevant and indisputable. The continued operation of the Guantanamo facility is a blot on the nation's honor and reputation. Regardless of recidivism, Guantanamo should close.
Furthermore, the American people should see clearly that the responsibility and resulting failure to deal with this problem rests exclusively with the do-nothing, obstructionist Congress, not with President Obama.
Furthermore, the American people should see clearly that the responsibility and resulting failure to deal with this problem rests exclusively with the do-nothing, obstructionist Congress, not with President Obama.
5
I found this article to be informative and compelling. We can only hope that the naysayers in the Republican Party will have the courage to re-visit the issue with open minds. There is no reason that the truly dangerous sub-cohort cannot be re-located to a federal prison. As a U. S. citizen living in South America, I can confirm that Guantánamo is a powerful symbol for anti-Americanism and conspiracy theories. For myself, I trust that President Obama will find a way to fulfill his campaign promise to close Guantánamo and thereby do much to restore our country's reputation.
12
The reason we have Guantanamo in the first place is thatCongress was petrified to have prisoners interned and tried in the US. How quickly we forget- What a stain on democracy.
5
The Obama administration has a perfect solution for closing Gitmo. Just release the detainees to Yemen or wherever and then take them out with a drone strike. O% recidivism and no need to deal with courts or military tribunals!
3
Here's a cruel thought. As long as Guantanamo stays open, it's a public reminder of the dysfunction and delusion that hobbles our national security apparatus. Close it and all the floundering of the GWOT slips out of view, into dark sites, occasionally reported drone strikes, transfers of weapons to the terrorists we currently favor. The consequences of our tactics are diffuse and hard for nonspecialists to grasp --- the collapse of nation states, the Darwinian evolution of extremist organizations of ever greater sophistication, allies that become every more authoritarian. We need something simple, a symbol, to remind us of the extent to which we are our own most potent enemy.
4
Thank you Mr. Sloan for your tireless efforts in releasing prisoners at Guantánamo. I suspect the notion that these individuals will remain in the countries sent to is rather naive regardless of the handshakes and warm assurances from receiving countries. We are all creatures of habit and will most likely try to get home. I do not wholly advocate for some of the methods used by interrogators, but these are truly not nice people.
2
Put a few bucks into the never-opened max security prison in Thomson (sp.?) Illinois, send the un-releasable there, get some momentum for undoing the wrong that is Guantanamo, and move who we can to new host nations.
From what I've read, Thomson is a big place, big enough for Bush, Cheney, and their Gang. Time's up, Georgie boy.
From what I've read, Thomson is a big place, big enough for Bush, Cheney, and their Gang. Time's up, Georgie boy.
5
I believe that the people of Thomson have already told the US that they do NOT want terrorists in their community. There were public meetings etc. about it when the plan was discussed. The antipathy of the community quite rightly put an end to these plans.
This shows why they can't be moved to the US - no community wants a terrorist in a prison situated in their community.
I wonder how much money we pay these other countries to take there terrorists? I do not think it is out of the goodness of their heart. I am quite sure there is some sort of quid pro quo which Obama will not tell to the Congress much less the public.
This shows why they can't be moved to the US - no community wants a terrorist in a prison situated in their community.
I wonder how much money we pay these other countries to take there terrorists? I do not think it is out of the goodness of their heart. I am quite sure there is some sort of quid pro quo which Obama will not tell to the Congress much less the public.
The only advantage in maintaining Guantanamo is a cynical, political one realized by those exploiting people's fear.
9
It is a relief to see that people being held without any due process are finally receiving reviews. When the prisoners are being transferred, there really isn't a reason that they have to be re-located to prisons in other countries. The "supermax" prisons that the United States operates are more than sufficient for the holding of prisoners that can be proven to still pose a real threat to the United States. It would be politically complicated, surely there would be campaign advertisements in 2016 about the politicians that "put terrorists in prisons near you", but it would be the most efficient approach to take.
Issues such as Gitmo are consistently used by politicians to avoid the larger defense issues, including the US defense spending, a total in excess of $700 billion. With the closing of the prison, another distraction defense issue will be brought to the table, and it will be interesting to see what it is.
Issues such as Gitmo are consistently used by politicians to avoid the larger defense issues, including the US defense spending, a total in excess of $700 billion. With the closing of the prison, another distraction defense issue will be brought to the table, and it will be interesting to see what it is.
6
"Second, opponents of closing Guantánamo — including former Vice President Dick Cheney....."
Why in God's name are we still paying attention to anything this war criminal has to say about anything?
Why in God's name are we still paying attention to anything this war criminal has to say about anything?
18
All in the name of compromise.
2
Cliff Sloan says that the Obama Administration is well on its way to closing Gitmo and that is good because Gitmo is a stain on our reputation and a recruiting tool for al Qaeda et al. But surely closing Gitmo is the silliest foreign policy objective America has ever undertaken.
Gitmo is just a prisoner of war camp and if a nation goes to war against some other nation or outfit like al Qaeda, it needs a POW camp. Indeed, it has an obligation to open one under the laws of war because otherwise it is compelled to adopt a policy of "taking no prisoners" which historically has been considered the worst of all policies, practiced only by the worst of all thuggish nations. And that is what has happened to us.
Because Obama promised to close Gitmo, he beginning with the unnecessary killing of Osama bin Laden has adopted a policy of taking no prisoners. Instead of ordering the CIA or our special forces to capture suspected terrorists and holding them until we determine whether they are truly terrorists, Obama has ordered the CIA to fling a drone at them, killing them and everyone around them, without ever really knowing whether they are who the CIA suspects them to be. According to Obama only some of those held at Gitmo are true terrorists but everyone he kills is guilty.
To
Gitmo is just a prisoner of war camp and if a nation goes to war against some other nation or outfit like al Qaeda, it needs a POW camp. Indeed, it has an obligation to open one under the laws of war because otherwise it is compelled to adopt a policy of "taking no prisoners" which historically has been considered the worst of all policies, practiced only by the worst of all thuggish nations. And that is what has happened to us.
Because Obama promised to close Gitmo, he beginning with the unnecessary killing of Osama bin Laden has adopted a policy of taking no prisoners. Instead of ordering the CIA or our special forces to capture suspected terrorists and holding them until we determine whether they are truly terrorists, Obama has ordered the CIA to fling a drone at them, killing them and everyone around them, without ever really knowing whether they are who the CIA suspects them to be. According to Obama only some of those held at Gitmo are true terrorists but everyone he kills is guilty.
To
4
Our first amendment is a great example and only weapon for poor people like us who are not allowed to have attorneys to get justice and are kept in financial hardship while the city state and private corporations have teams of attorneys to control freedom. Today I reviewed a summons from PHH Mortgage who have teams of attorneys such as Hunt Leibert Jacobson of Hartford CT to foreclose.
It is easy to destroy buildings and family’s with the rules of destruction such as The Patriot Act.
Sincerely, Ajmal Mehdi
The People Party of Connecticut
It is easy to destroy buildings and family’s with the rules of destruction such as The Patriot Act.
Sincerely, Ajmal Mehdi
The People Party of Connecticut
1
Mr. Sloan, thank you for the job you have done for the American people and for this cogent analysis. While your column may ultimately be more persuasive for your refusal to question motives, I'll say it: Dick Cheney is not well intentioned. And why aren't those who claim to care so much about fiscal responsibility demanding that we stop paying 3 million per year when we could pay only 75 thousand? We're wasting money because some politicians want the American people to stay scared.
13
The constant refrain of congressional Republicans and their base was always no other country will take them, and we can't try them in court within the US because that would invite another attack on the country.
As almost always, they were wrong.
As almost always, they were wrong.
30
Close Guantanamo, the prison, and close Guantanamo the naval base. We have neither right nor reason to operate a military base in Cuba.
Mark Muhich
Mark Muhich
6
Just ship 'em all back to their country of origin and let those governments deal with them. My guess is that they will yearn for the salad days in an American facility in Cuba.
1
The three main reasons Gitmo is not closed?
John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Kelly Ayotte (replacing the retired Joe Lieberman.)
What is a greater travesty is when the MSM repeats the Fox News lie that Obama broke his promise to close Gitmo when it is known full well Congress forbade him from doing so.
John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Kelly Ayotte (replacing the retired Joe Lieberman.)
What is a greater travesty is when the MSM repeats the Fox News lie that Obama broke his promise to close Gitmo when it is known full well Congress forbade him from doing so.
13
It's not a secret, CIA owns dozens of secret prisons all around the world. Guantanamo is just one of them. There are prisons in Europe and in the Middle East. CIA spends hundreds of millions dollars on their content.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/10/us-usa-cia-torture-poland-idUS...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/10/us-usa-cia-torture-poland-idUS...
5
An Obama boast and promise and an Obama failure. Now it becomes the opportunity for a republican example of security, and if ever it is beneficial the complete the former president's boast, it will be a republican achievement
2
Guantanamo is a disgrace on the order of the internment of the Japanese citizens in WWII. It's only rational was to hold these men beyond the reach of legal recourse. Close it, and while we're at it, renegotiate or cancel the lease that was imposed on Cuba by force.
15
Any discussion facilitating the closing of the base must include the sentiments of those on whose land the base sits. Cuba has protested US control of Guantanamo for decades. It is time we end our imperialist endeavors on the territory of other countries. That is the real stain on the US govt.
11
Thanks for the most explicit, clear and concise analysis of how things stand with Gitmo. It is heartening to read that this much progress has been made towards the goal of closing down the facility. The President has not been as forthcoming about all of this as would have been in his best interests to be.
I thank Mr. Sloan for his work. But I also wish he had written more about plans to expedite the transfer of the 59 men who have been cleared to be moved out. Where, when, etc will this take place?
What about the remaining 68 men? How much longer should their lives be held in limbo? Even the most dangerous of men/'most heinous' criminals deserve the right to some sort of trial. And the reputation of the USA as a democratic, justice loving country is at stake. MORE needs to be done to at least reduce, if not eliminate, the scourge that Gitmo has caused the USA.
I thank Mr. Sloan for his work. But I also wish he had written more about plans to expedite the transfer of the 59 men who have been cleared to be moved out. Where, when, etc will this take place?
What about the remaining 68 men? How much longer should their lives be held in limbo? Even the most dangerous of men/'most heinous' criminals deserve the right to some sort of trial. And the reputation of the USA as a democratic, justice loving country is at stake. MORE needs to be done to at least reduce, if not eliminate, the scourge that Gitmo has caused the USA.
37
GTMO was never necessary. It was part of the shoot-first attitude of the Bush administration. Looking tough was more important than looking morally and legally correct.
The foreign press I read and the foreigners I meet, largely European, consider GTMO to represent the worst of America. Unfortunately, some have come to think it all too typical of America. Maybe they're feeble-minded, but some tend to see a sameness in the gun-happy culture of America and our cavalier attitude to imprisoning people, our own included.
The foreign press I read and the foreigners I meet, largely European, consider GTMO to represent the worst of America. Unfortunately, some have come to think it all too typical of America. Maybe they're feeble-minded, but some tend to see a sameness in the gun-happy culture of America and our cavalier attitude to imprisoning people, our own included.
54
Yes, more apologizing. Gitmo is not a stain on America. It has served its purpose and it's closure is the right move. But please stop the blended knee genuflecting to our enemies and so called friends most of whom we have protected for the last almost 100 years. The world needs a strong, engaged America and that will never change.
13
So, if you protect someone, their concerns are invalid? What kind of protection it that?
7
No one apologized but those that put many of them there should be made to do so. We have many incarcerated there who should never have been brought there at all. The problem is that those who made the mistake to begin with refuse to acknowledge their mistakes and, instead, compound them by making it impossible to release them.
What's almost humorous is how the belligerence which the Cheney types bluster about US omnipotence and righteousness dissolves into utter fear when the mention of fair trials in a US courts is brought up. To date, there have been only convictions and NO attacks from crazed jihadis trying to jail-break their fellow terrorists.
Get rid of this stain on America ASAP.
What's almost humorous is how the belligerence which the Cheney types bluster about US omnipotence and righteousness dissolves into utter fear when the mention of fair trials in a US courts is brought up. To date, there have been only convictions and NO attacks from crazed jihadis trying to jail-break their fellow terrorists.
Get rid of this stain on America ASAP.
10
Please explain how 'we' have protected our so-called friends for the last almost 100 years and who they are.
I only remember when WWII was already raging in Europe for over two years, we did not protect our friends. That only started once the US itself was attacked by the axis member Japan, and we had to get into the fight.
Furthermore, what on earth would that relate to the closing of Gitmo anyway.
I only remember when WWII was already raging in Europe for over two years, we did not protect our friends. That only started once the US itself was attacked by the axis member Japan, and we had to get into the fight.
Furthermore, what on earth would that relate to the closing of Gitmo anyway.
3
I always feel deep empathy with people caught in a web of circumstances and think how despairing it is to be incarcerated when you know you have done nothing wrong. As a consequence of this, is it surprising that some of these people, when freed, will feel animosity and a sense of revenge for their unjust treatment? I find it fundamentally repulsive to keep a person in jail without giving him a chance to prove his innocence. And never mind the mistreatment received. One cannot destroy another person's life on the mere assumption that he might possibly constitute a danger.
46
This prison is needed to contain terrorists, who are neither criminals nor prisoners of war.
5
The war on terror will go on forever, therefore, Gitmo is a perfect place to hold non-prisoners in the non-war...forever. Have I got it right? We should have little Gitmos all over the USA, to hold people indefinitely who we're pretty sure have done something really bad...but we just can't prove in a court of law.
9
I think this comment is very helpful. We DO need to stop arguing whether terrorists should be treated like prisoners of war or treated like criminals. The fact is that they are neither, and so we shouldn't expect our existing legal institutions to deal with them effectively.
I don't know that we need Gitmo to contain terrorists, but we are long overdue for a public debate over how terrorists should be dealt with going forward, and we should admit that terrorists are neither criminals nor POWs.
I don't know that we need Gitmo to contain terrorists, but we are long overdue for a public debate over how terrorists should be dealt with going forward, and we should admit that terrorists are neither criminals nor POWs.
R. So, the ends justify the means?
A few other problems with your statement: (1) You have no proof that most of those individuals are terrorists. They were seized under a variety of cirmcumstances, including just being suspected of being terrorists. At most, they are "alleged terrorists", and holding them in limbo at Guantanamo precludes trials that would make a judgement about whether they had engaged in terrorist acts.
(2) Many legals opinions and several cases decided in US Circuit Courts have concluded that they are prisoners of war. The Bush Administration created a term "enemy combatants" and then claimed, without documentation, that certain terms of the Geneva Conventions did not apply to them. And, according to those Conventions that we continue to violate, even persons not granted "by a military tribunal" POW status are entitled to humane treatment.
If you don't believe that most of the world and world governments have concluded that we continue to violate the Geneva Conventions, ask Dick Cheney to tour Europe. You can bet his trip will end at the Hague.
A few other problems with your statement: (1) You have no proof that most of those individuals are terrorists. They were seized under a variety of cirmcumstances, including just being suspected of being terrorists. At most, they are "alleged terrorists", and holding them in limbo at Guantanamo precludes trials that would make a judgement about whether they had engaged in terrorist acts.
(2) Many legals opinions and several cases decided in US Circuit Courts have concluded that they are prisoners of war. The Bush Administration created a term "enemy combatants" and then claimed, without documentation, that certain terms of the Geneva Conventions did not apply to them. And, according to those Conventions that we continue to violate, even persons not granted "by a military tribunal" POW status are entitled to humane treatment.
If you don't believe that most of the world and world governments have concluded that we continue to violate the Geneva Conventions, ask Dick Cheney to tour Europe. You can bet his trip will end at the Hague.
8
It is increasingly common to find that people in the US have been convicted of crimes and incarcerated for 20-30 years until DNA or other convincing evidence (and often prosecutorial misconduct) proves them innocent.
Do we say, yes, but now that they have spent time with hardened criminals and have a deep resentment from the harsh treatment and/or conditions in these prisons they might go out and commit crimes?? NO, of course not. We release them.
Why shouldn't the same principles apply to the many innocent people captured and held at Guantanamo? Why should we insist that foreign countries accept them? We created this problem and it is our responsibility to solve it. Those who choose to do so, they should be permitted to emigrate to the US under conditions similar to witness protection in which they are provided initial employment and we can keep track of their whereabouts.
It is only right and just to do this.
Do we say, yes, but now that they have spent time with hardened criminals and have a deep resentment from the harsh treatment and/or conditions in these prisons they might go out and commit crimes?? NO, of course not. We release them.
Why shouldn't the same principles apply to the many innocent people captured and held at Guantanamo? Why should we insist that foreign countries accept them? We created this problem and it is our responsibility to solve it. Those who choose to do so, they should be permitted to emigrate to the US under conditions similar to witness protection in which they are provided initial employment and we can keep track of their whereabouts.
It is only right and just to do this.
75
I think your assumption that there are many innocent people in Guantanamo is questionable. In war, there are no absolute standards of proof. Mistakes will be made, but I'd bet on balanace 99% of the people there aren't choirboys.
As Mr Sloan points out, there are at least 59 detainees who six notoriously-paranoid agencies agree should be released due to the lack of evidence for terrorist involvement. I don't know whether that constitutes darylreece's definition of "innocence," but it can't justify indefinite detention. Yet they remain indefinitely detained, with no hope of either a trial or release, mainly due to the protracted dysfunction of the American political system.
Whatever threat either Guantanamo or its detainees might pose to national security, it's a threat entirely of our own creation. The Bush administration set up the gulag under their own ideological beliefs about the unlimited wartime power of the Unitary Executive, intentionally spurning the American constitutional system as well as the Geneva Convention. It seemed more about firmly placing themselves above the law than about real security.
Even though the Bush neocons are out of office, Guantanamo remains an intractable mess. Faced with Republicans intent on blocking anything he tries to do, Obama seemed to have opted for the simplest option of letting the detainees themselves solve the problem by rotting away until they die of natural causes. Now that he feels he has nothing to lose, Obama is doing what he can to shrink Guantanamo until it's no longer viable. That seems a better approach than continuing to perpetuate the damage the Bush neocons inflicted on America with their torture gulag.
Whatever threat either Guantanamo or its detainees might pose to national security, it's a threat entirely of our own creation. The Bush administration set up the gulag under their own ideological beliefs about the unlimited wartime power of the Unitary Executive, intentionally spurning the American constitutional system as well as the Geneva Convention. It seemed more about firmly placing themselves above the law than about real security.
Even though the Bush neocons are out of office, Guantanamo remains an intractable mess. Faced with Republicans intent on blocking anything he tries to do, Obama seemed to have opted for the simplest option of letting the detainees themselves solve the problem by rotting away until they die of natural causes. Now that he feels he has nothing to lose, Obama is doing what he can to shrink Guantanamo until it's no longer viable. That seems a better approach than continuing to perpetuate the damage the Bush neocons inflicted on America with their torture gulag.
6
In addition to Guantanamo, the Patriot act which perpetuates suspect definitions of enemy combatants, and allows extraterritorial detention and suspension of habeas corpus is also a stain on this great country's reputation and legacy. The Obama administrations' efforts on Guantanamo are admirable. On the patriot act, and national security snooping on Americans and other civil liberties violations, they leave a lot to be desired.
42
The author provides no compelling reasons for closing the prison save deeply flawed opinion, such as an anonymous ally ("not European"). Such an assertion may prove compelling for liberals, whose vision of foreign policy and world leadership is to be seen as pure (or in the author's words, be "the country we aspire to be"). This can be contrasted with facts that not even the author's muddled thoughts can deny: released prisoners have returned to the field and killed Americans. Frankly, until Obama can find a way to execute Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he should not expect nor receive cooperation in doing anything at Guantanamo.
3
"This can be contrasted with facts that not even the author's muddled thoughts can deny: released prisoners have returned to the field and killed Americans."
The net effect will be fewer dead Americans, not more. Where is the flaw in that?
Even if not, it must be closed. It is just wrong.
The net effect will be fewer dead Americans, not more. Where is the flaw in that?
Even if not, it must be closed. It is just wrong.
15
because killing a terrorist is the best way to fight terrorism? that's simplistic, dangerous and out of touch with the complex and nuanced thinking about counterterrorism.
2
Talk is cheap. Who has killed whom? Why is this fact more compelling than the fact that we could hold these prisoners for 40X less at a Supermax. This whole process has been misguided and mishandled. Sometimes admitting error hurts, but the damage is minor compared with decades of wasteful policy.
7
I agree; Guantanamo must be closed. This is not only the ethical thing to do, it is the politically wise thing as well. An anecdote in support of this: during a 2006 visit to Morocco, I had a chance to meet with a group of Moroccan university students. I asked them what they thought of when they thought of the United States. Immediately a young man spoke up; "Guantanamo," he said.
39
Gitmo represents the US and our torture regime, it needs to be closed.
82
Your apt and accurate use of those three words - "stain on America" - tells the entire sad and foolish story. All brought about by sad and foolish men: Bush, Cheney and their cabal.
68
"I don’t question the motives of those who oppose the efforts to close Guantánamo...
A third group fails to recognize that the deep stain on our standing in the world is more dangerous than any individual approved for transfer."
This argument may be a hard sell politically. But it's so blindingly obvious, that not questioning the motives of opposing politicians is pure politeness.
A third group fails to recognize that the deep stain on our standing in the world is more dangerous than any individual approved for transfer."
This argument may be a hard sell politically. But it's so blindingly obvious, that not questioning the motives of opposing politicians is pure politeness.
26
The strongest reason for closing Guantanamo is that Cheney is against closing it. He is wrong in virtually every category of his decisions.
81
Let him be right for once; the strongest reason for keeping Guantanamo open is the opportunity to put him in it.
15
Close it or keep it open? To please both sides of the debate, what about a third option as payback for the Mariel Boatlift when Fidel dumped his excess criminals and lunatics on US shores? The guards just sneak out in the middle of the night and leave the gate slightly ajar.
3
I find the incessant characterizations of Guantánamo as a "stain on America" to be excessively naive. It's as if of all the nations of Earth we are to hew to rules of warfare that limit us to modalities of the past when adversaries wore uniforms, basically played by mutually accepted rules and didn't fly planes into buildings. Our adversaries do none of these things yet we're expected to lay down because some among us regard Guantánamo as unacceptable.
We haven't been able to get rid of it because it was very necessary once and, until fairly recently, remained necessary -- Barack Obama couldn't even bring himself to close it, and everyone knows he would have if he could have.
That said, Mr. Sloan would be well advised to stop talking about how important it is to close the detention facility at Guantánamo, and just get on with doing it.
We haven't been able to get rid of it because it was very necessary once and, until fairly recently, remained necessary -- Barack Obama couldn't even bring himself to close it, and everyone knows he would have if he could have.
That said, Mr. Sloan would be well advised to stop talking about how important it is to close the detention facility at Guantánamo, and just get on with doing it.
2
That last cheap shot is misplaced. Mr. Sloan is no longer the special envoy. And if he still were, why would it be a bad idea to try to gather public support for his position?
18
Your use of phrases such as "rules of warfare", "adversaries wore uniforms", and "played by mutually accepted rules" indicates that you have never served in the military. The huge lies and deception perpetrated on the American people by other American people were the original causes for the existence of Guantanamo, which was never "very necessary".
32
One of those "rules of warfare" (i.e., the Geneva Convention) was not torturing.
18
Please, please close this moral monstrosity! It should never even have been conceived, let alone implemented.
70
"Three misconceptions are holding up the end of this stain on America."
I totally agree that it should be closed. But the other thing holding up the end of this stain, and unfortunately the only relevant one, is (based on what I've read) that many Americans feel that it is their only way of exacting a tiny bit of revenge on some of those they view as allied with the perpetrators of 9/11.
"Americans from across the spectrum agree on closing Guantánamo."
But what percentage of Americans are we talking about? Since you don't even offer a lower bound, it is impossible to know whether to attribute any importance at all to this statement.
I totally agree that it should be closed. But the other thing holding up the end of this stain, and unfortunately the only relevant one, is (based on what I've read) that many Americans feel that it is their only way of exacting a tiny bit of revenge on some of those they view as allied with the perpetrators of 9/11.
"Americans from across the spectrum agree on closing Guantánamo."
But what percentage of Americans are we talking about? Since you don't even offer a lower bound, it is impossible to know whether to attribute any importance at all to this statement.
2
Polymath, "a tiny bit of revenge" was already exacted with hundreds of thousands of people killed - mostly civilians - across the middle East in the wars since 9/11. Isn't that enough?
35
Sure -- but you, like the article, are being logical, whereas far too many citizens are not.
1
Over the years, members of Congress and many state legislatures have opposed moving prisoners out of Guantanamo and into existing prisons in the mainland US so they could be put on trial and the truly guilty sorted out from those just caught up in the chaos that followed 9-11 and our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, during World War II, over 400,000 German prisoners of war, many captured in combat, were held in prison camps located in all but three of the US states. They were repatriated at the end of the war. This was the action of a nation confident of its own strength and committed to upholding national and international standards regarding the treatment of prisoners. Since 9-11, however, we have been gripped by irrational fears that have been stoked by politicians like Dick Cheney who promise to "keep us safe" even though the policies they advocate actually increase the likelihood of further terrorist attacks. Failure to close Guantanamo after a dozen years, and our resort to torture, tell the world that we are now a weak and easily frightened nation no longer committed to the rule of law.
121
Terrorists are not POWs. They are not just active members of the military wing of a country acting under lawful orders of a political leadership that is at war with another political entity. Rather, they are self-motivated actors with substantial operational discretion in sowing fear among the law-abiding civilians living in modern societies.
Terrorists are not criminals. They are not trying to take property by force. They are not harming individuals out of any sort of personalized motive. Rather, they are harming individuals to create fear and chaos with the ultimate goal of undermining modernity and the very idea of western civilization.
What to do about terrorists is an open question, but making facile comparisons to the treatment of POWs in WW2 does not advance the discussion.
Terrorists are not criminals. They are not trying to take property by force. They are not harming individuals out of any sort of personalized motive. Rather, they are harming individuals to create fear and chaos with the ultimate goal of undermining modernity and the very idea of western civilization.
What to do about terrorists is an open question, but making facile comparisons to the treatment of POWs in WW2 does not advance the discussion.
11
The arbitrary classification of detainees as "enemy combatants" who are neither criminals nor prisoners of war has no basis in law. Either they are lawful prisoners of war, or they are unlawful actors (combatants or noncombatants) subject to criminal prosecution. Under international standards, there is no third undefined category. Each detainee should be identified as one or the other, and either detained or exchanged as a prisoner of war, or tried or released without charge as a criminal. It's that simple.
16
How does one define a terrorist? It seems you have chosen Cheney's definition, "Anyone who is not me is a potential terrorist."
1
Mr Cheney is absolutely correct, we need to keep Guantanamo open. It is one of the very best recruiting tools for the DA (formerly Da3sh in Arabic or ISIL in French), and brings them tens of thousands of new members every year. Without Guantanamo, the DA and al-Qaeda would have a hard time getting young people from all over the world rushing to join, and how would the US be able to justify the War on Terror at current levels? And we need all those lucrative contracts justified by the War on Terror that go to companies like the ones that pay Mr Cheney after all he's done for us.
32
And that is the 4th rationale of those sincere individuals who oppose closing.
9-11 was a tremendous boon to Cheney, Bush and their corporate allies. It furnished them a convenient enemy - darkskinned, talks funny, believes differently - to distract and delude us into voting for our real exploiters: the frackers, the payday lenders, the outsourcers and downsizers and banks.
9-11 was a tremendous boon to Cheney, Bush and their corporate allies. It furnished them a convenient enemy - darkskinned, talks funny, believes differently - to distract and delude us into voting for our real exploiters: the frackers, the payday lenders, the outsourcers and downsizers and banks.
1
Guantanamo belongs to Cuba. What are we doing there?
19
Vestige of the Spanish American war. But you could have figured that out. More interesting is why was it necessary? At one tme, long, long ago, we were at war with 'the terrorists'. But now that that struggle is resolved, there is obviously no reason to maintain an offshore military detention facility. Why can't we all just get along? We may want to ask the nice people of ISIS that very question. They are obviously just misunderstood.
1
By far the greatest threat posed by these individuals to the United States is their continuing imprisonment. At large, even in an impossibly unlikely worst case scenario, they would be 127 Muslim radicals among tens of thousands. In Guantanamo they are a testimony to our disdain for the values we claim to represent, a rallying cry for our enemies, and an embarrassment to our allies.
America cannot win wars or establish peace by sowing seeds of resentment among our enemies and doubt among our friends. Surely those who hesitate at the aftermath of closing Guantanamo can see that there are even more dire consequences to maintaining it. We have rejected the torture and kidnapping that stained our national honor. We should complete our reform by closing Guantanamo.
America cannot win wars or establish peace by sowing seeds of resentment among our enemies and doubt among our friends. Surely those who hesitate at the aftermath of closing Guantanamo can see that there are even more dire consequences to maintaining it. We have rejected the torture and kidnapping that stained our national honor. We should complete our reform by closing Guantanamo.
141
Concur with all except the comment that it's an embarrassment to our allies. Our "allies" usually have darker dungeons than ours except for the fact that publicize all and they don't.
2
I totally disagree with the idea that being nice to terrorists make them civilized. So many of the previously released prisoners have gone back to killing that I personally would never release another prisoner ever. There never was torture as the enhanced interrogation was nothing like real torture as performed by 99% of the world's countries. Instead, as a humanitarian gesture, instead of getting the prisoner's face wet, the government executes folks and their families with missiles and this is wonderful in the liberal mind. The hypocrisy is breathtaking!!
1
James -- What we did affixed the imprimatur of the United States to the notion that physically abusing and threatening prisoners is a legitimate and effective way to extract information. It casts us among the nations whose official positions condone abuse. It violated treaties we had signed and belittled our opposition to the inhumane treatment of our military personnel by others. Along with renditions, where even more egregious acts undoubtedly were performed, it was wrong both morally and legally and should never have occurred.
The people detained at Guantanamo deserve to be treated as prisoners of war, tried as criminals, or released. There is no excuse for detaining them in perpetuity for unspecified charges based on unrevealed evidence provided by unnamed sources. If such a category of prisoners exists then we all could become subject to it.
We do not adhere to laws and treaties only for the protection of those accused of crimes. We also do so to protect ourselves from the violence of a lawless society. Anyone can be accused of terrorism or any other crime if the accusation does not have to be proven or even adjudicated.
The people detained at Guantanamo deserve to be treated as prisoners of war, tried as criminals, or released. There is no excuse for detaining them in perpetuity for unspecified charges based on unrevealed evidence provided by unnamed sources. If such a category of prisoners exists then we all could become subject to it.
We do not adhere to laws and treaties only for the protection of those accused of crimes. We also do so to protect ourselves from the violence of a lawless society. Anyone can be accused of terrorism or any other crime if the accusation does not have to be proven or even adjudicated.
3
Guantanomo should have been closed a long time ago, and there is no excuse for holding anybody there. It was a very bad idea. It is a disgrace on our country and has always been, and a sore , one of many, on America in the eyes of the rest of the world. Yes, it provokes terrorism and hatred.
53
The last sentence is an ideological delusion:
"Imprisoning men(anyone?) without charges for this long
. . . is not in line with the country we aspire to be."
Sadly, that is only a true statement for maybe less than a third of us.
The overwhelming majority of both likely voters, and the public-at-large either couldn't care less, or would be unbothered if we were torturing them.
A large part of our population buys in to the propaganda coming from Cheney & et. al.
"Imprisoning men(anyone?) without charges for this long
. . . is not in line with the country we aspire to be."
Sadly, that is only a true statement for maybe less than a third of us.
The overwhelming majority of both likely voters, and the public-at-large either couldn't care less, or would be unbothered if we were torturing them.
A large part of our population buys in to the propaganda coming from Cheney & et. al.
62
So why is it an ideological delusion? Do we aspire to imprison people for long periods without charges? Has the FBI been delusional in bringing terrorists to justice the right way?
With regard to holding the people who need to be held, what is the argument in favor of bringing them here to the mainland?
Due process.
12
For one, $75,000 vs. $3,000,000 per prisoner per year. But more important, not keeping open a facility so damaging to our moral image.
24
It's good to hear progress has actually been made toward this. Thank you Cliff Sloan. Our nation's security is important, but we shouldn't be doing it in a way that we would seriously criticize if another country was doing the same thing.
24
I thought american exceptionalism means that the golden rulee may not be invoked.
3
I see two obstacles to closing Guantanomo:
1. Many Americans, particularly Republicans who feel a commitment to the Bush Administration, can't admit mistakes. But they are very good at blaming others.
2. Many Americans, according to polls, actually approve of torture. And in the CIA we now have cadres who like to torture, knowing they have immunity in both the Bush and Obama administrations.
So here's my suggestion: if President Obama can't close Guantanomo, transform it into a non-punitive compound, where the prisoners have a high degree of independence, but can't leave. Trouble is, he lacks the political to do so and is actually indifferent to the fate of our victims.
1. Many Americans, particularly Republicans who feel a commitment to the Bush Administration, can't admit mistakes. But they are very good at blaming others.
2. Many Americans, according to polls, actually approve of torture. And in the CIA we now have cadres who like to torture, knowing they have immunity in both the Bush and Obama administrations.
So here's my suggestion: if President Obama can't close Guantanomo, transform it into a non-punitive compound, where the prisoners have a high degree of independence, but can't leave. Trouble is, he lacks the political to do so and is actually indifferent to the fate of our victims.
3
The continuing existence of Guantanamo makes me embarrassed to be an American.
79
Keeping in jail individuals that, by most accounts, are innocent, caught under adverse circumstances and with no fault of their own, and imprisoned with no chance to defend themselves, and for all these years, is a travesty of justice; they need to be freed and compensated, for their suffering and irretrievable lost years in prison. And while we are at it, Guanta'namo must be closed, as it is an ugly reminder of injustice and a poster child for recruitment by extremist fundamentalists. Whoever opposes its closure is either willfully blind to its consequences, or has no shame in inflicting harm to men who have no charges against them.
31
Compensating innocents is a very good idea. They would probably be quite happy with the money that one year of their mistreatment cost. It would be an official admission of serious mistakes though, so I very much doubt it will happen. Too bad. It would be a huge coup of coming clean.
2
I don't know about official diplomatic need for hypocrisy, but recognizing our mistake and further, showing remorse, is a very liberating and ennobling thing. Trouble is, arrogance and a false sense of justice do interfere, a tribute to ignorance and its attendant biases. Obama could say: we are better than this!
2
It is unthinkable and inhumane to let these people languish in perpetuity, for both them and their loved ones. If there are specific cases to be made, proceed, and those whose crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time should be returned home. The torture disclosures were a step towards regaining the moral compass lost in the War on Terror; closing Gitmo is next. The realization of this priority for then-candidate Obama can still be a good note on his Presidential legacy.
28
President Obama ended the war in Iraq and combat operations in Afghanistan as promised. Now all he needs to do is close the prison at Guantánamo Bay and he will have fully earned that Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to him with exactly these high expectations in 2009.
9
$3Million per detainee in Gitmo vs $75,000 in a Super-Max security prison. That should awaken any decent, honest fiscal conservative.
In addition, as a fiscal conservative I go, $75,000 per prisoner, ... and how much are we willing to spend on education? The $75k is a drain vs whatever we spend on education that will create a productive citizen some of whom might end up being creators of new products, music, literature, companies, movies, cures, etc...
In addition, as a fiscal conservative I go, $75,000 per prisoner, ... and how much are we willing to spend on education? The $75k is a drain vs whatever we spend on education that will create a productive citizen some of whom might end up being creators of new products, music, literature, companies, movies, cures, etc...
14
Sadly, it is happening eight long, shame filled years after the American people voted to close this offense to humanity, with our Obama votes.
17
Voting for president is not enough. You also have to vote in midterms and in your local elections. It's ironic that so many leftists complain about Guantanamo but can't be bothered to come out to vote more than once every four years.
For an overview of President Obama's repeated attempts to close Guantanamo, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#President_Oba...
If we had had a strongly liberal congress, Guantanamo would have been closed in 2008.
For an overview of President Obama's repeated attempts to close Guantanamo, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#President_Oba...
If we had had a strongly liberal congress, Guantanamo would have been closed in 2008.
3
Obama has said virtually nothing about this deep stain on America. He deserves oblivion, even though he is not as actively evil as Bush-Cheney-Rice.
To see more about those three, who are the true axis of evil, go to YouTube and watch aoeGenesis7 (22 min). Then support Elizabeth Warren and invite me to speak to your group. Thank you.
To see more about those three, who are the true axis of evil, go to YouTube and watch aoeGenesis7 (22 min). Then support Elizabeth Warren and invite me to speak to your group. Thank you.
2
Like support for torture, the opposition to the closing of Guantanamo arises from the lowest foulness in the American psyche: ignorant hatred of foreigners and a mindless drive to cause retributive pain in response to the fear created by the 9/11 attacks and the endless drumbeat of yellow journalism ever since. They echo the cowardice of Cheney and Bush: do anything to anybody while putting countless American soldiers lives' at risk and shredding American law, values and liberties. When an American soldier or journalist is waterboarded before slaughter by ISIS we have the American precedent to thank for it.
51
Thank you for this clearly argued and very informative article. I was surprised at the Bush quote, though something should be added: Guantanamo is not just a "distraction for our allies", it has helped to undermine public opinion in other countries to a level not seen before. This, along with the long-known practices of torture and rendition and constant new revelations about surveillance, make people so distrustful of the morals and motives of the US that governments can now only cooperate against the will of their own people.
16
After the closing of the American gulag at Guantanamo the US should either return it to Cuban sovereignty, or, pay a fair market value in rent for 45 oceanfront square miles of Caribbean real estate.
12
I wasn't surprised to see Mr. Obama pivot, in recent public speeches, from chastising Sony's capitulation on "The Interview" to closing Guantanamo. Let the Republicans make their usual objections to detainee reassignment to Supermaxes, then ask Charles Schumer or someone to say,
"Let me get this straight. Last month Americans seeing a movie made it clear that they aren't afraid of a cyber-hacking, nuclear-armed dictator with a million-man army, so why exactly should they be afraid of wretched prisoners who have been cut off from the outside world for ten years?"
"Let me get this straight. Last month Americans seeing a movie made it clear that they aren't afraid of a cyber-hacking, nuclear-armed dictator with a million-man army, so why exactly should they be afraid of wretched prisoners who have been cut off from the outside world for ten years?"
8
Close Gitmo? And give up a base?
Incredulous look on my face!
Since Cubans all hate it
Then why underrate it?
I think t'will remain in its place!
Incredulous look on my face!
Since Cubans all hate it
Then why underrate it?
I think t'will remain in its place!
12
The article is about closing the detention facility, not the base.
2
Read a little more carefully. The article is not about closing the base. It is about "closing the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay."
5
While the poetry is cute, America does not give up a base, it merely closes the detention facility section. This facility (and other secret ones) facilitated extraordinary rendition occurring under Bush-Cheney resulting in endless incarceration and enhanced interrogation without habeas corpus.
American freedom is tarnished if anyone, anywhere can be "taken" and indefinitely held without a right to judicial appeal.
American freedom is tarnished if anyone, anywhere can be "taken" and indefinitely held without a right to judicial appeal.
3
Hopefully whoever is taking your place at the State Department will continue to help to close Gitmo. This dark chapter in American history needs to end. How can the US advise any other nation to end human rights violations when it detains 127 men without charging them with a crime for thirteen years?