Guantánamo: Will Obama shut it down?

last updated 8 January 2015

It’s a “tumor” on America’s soul, said the Chicago Sun-Times in an editorial, and the sooner Barack Obama removes it, the sooner our country can reclaim our “standing in the world.” For nearly seven years now, the U.S. military prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has stood as a debilitating symbol of Bush administration human-rights abuses. Housing hundreds of “enemy combatants”—most of them swept up in Afghanistan after 9/11—Guantánamo was where U.S. interrogators experimented with “enhanced interrogation” techniques; where prisoners were held for years with “no charges, no lawyers, no trials”; and where the country’s principles became casualties of the war on terror. Obama has pledged to close the facility—and this week, the president-elect leaked word that he is preparing a plan to do just that, after bringing many of the 250 remaining prisoners to the U.S. for trials.

That won’t be as easy as it sounds, said Dan Ephron in Newsweek.com. Of the 250 prisoners who remain, there are dozens of hardened terrorists, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the “dirty 30’’ cadre of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguards, and other al Qaida leaders. It’s far from clear how the regular criminal justice system could handle such cases, which involve highly classified information and intelligence sources. Then there’s the question of what to do with prisoners not deemed to be a threat—such as 17 members of the Uighur Muslim minority in China who were arrested in 2002 in Afghanistan, where they apparently were seeking refuge. “They would face possible torture if sent home.” What will happen to them?

The real question, said The Wall Street Journal, is what will happen to us? Guantánamo was established to help keep Americans safe, and there has not been a single attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Could it be that erring on the side of caution has saved lives? Besides, “if Gitmo is no longer a prison,” some U.S. facility would have to house those prisoners—for decades, if they’re convicted. “No politician has offered his state or district as an alternative—and none will.” Democrats are about to find out that simplistic solutions that sound good from the sidelines aren’t so simple when you have political responsibility for the country’s security. “After a few harrowing threat briefings,” maybe the new commander in chief will take a deep breath, and reconsider the value of some of Bush’s anti-terrorist policies.