This House would close Guantanamo Bay detention centre

Prisoners have been detained at Guantanamo for long periods without clear charges being filed and without trial. This is a violation of the international legal principle of habeas corpus. One of the primary problems is that, without clear charges and a presentation of evidence against a suspect, the suspect cannot contest the charges and prove their own innocence. And, as a matter of fact, numerous detainees have been found innocent, but only after excessively long periods without being charged or brought before a court.[1]

Many Guantanamo detainees may have never committed terrorist acts or fought against US forces in Afghanistan at all; they were simply turned over by Northern Alliance and Pakistani warlords for bounties of up to $25,000. For almost seven years they have been held without a fair hearing or opportunity to demonstrate those facts. Courts who reviewed the cases of 23 detainees to see if there was reasonable evidence for their continued detention found no credible basis for detaining 22 of them.[2] Other detainees were captured in places where, at the time of their arrest, there was no armed conflict involving US forces. The case of the six men of Algerian origin detained in Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 2001 is a well-known and well-documented example.[3]

Therefore the only way to resolve these issues is to try all  the detainees at Guantanamo Bay in US courts, and release any against whom charges cannot be brought. Former US Secretary of Defense Colin Powell has endorsed this reasoning, arguing that "I would get rid of Guantanamo and the military commission system and use established procedures in federal law[...]It's a more equitable way, and more understandable in constitutional terms,"[4] US courts are fully capable of dealing with terrorist trials, as shown by the fact that they have rendered 145 convictions in terror-related cases in the past.[5] Convictions in US courts would probably be seen internationally as having more legitimacy than those obtained through the current system of military tribunals, which is often viewed as rigged against the defendants.[6] Only by allowing full due process in American courts can the rights of the detainees be uaranteed and their guilt or innocence truly established.

[1] New York Times Opinion. "The President's Prison". New York Times. March 25, 2007. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E6D71530F936A15750C0A9619C8B63

[2] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990491721225253.html 

[3] United Nations Economic and Social Council. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006.

[4] Reuters. "Colin Powell says Guantanamo should be closed". Reuters. 10 June 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/10/us-usa-powell-idUSN1043646920070610

[5] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990491721225253.html 

[6] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990491721225253.html

Reforms can always be made to the legal process at Guantanamo, and so this is not a reason to close the facility or to try the detainees in US courts. Moreover, much of the credible and reliable evidence that justifies the continued detention cannot be admitted in US courts for legal reasons, such as the fact that those captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere were not read their Miranda rights on their arrest. Other cases involve evidence that is insufficient for trial but still sufficient to determine that release is an unacceptable security risk.[1] Furthermore, If transferred to U.S. courts, some of the detainees might be freed because of the aggressive interrogation techniques used against them. Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 plot, was interrogated so severely at Guantanamo Bay that Bush administration officials said he was tortured and did not refer his case for prosecution.[2]

[1] Wall Street Journal. "Obama and Guantanamo". Wall Street Journal. 22 January 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258578172604569.html 

[2] Fox News. "Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials". Fox News. January 21, 2009. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/21/families-outraged-obama-suspend-guantanamo-war-crimes-trials/

The existence of Guantanamo Bay is cited by terrorists as a tool of "the great Satan" and is seen by Muslims in general as a demonstration of US disregard for their dignity. It is, in turn, an effective tool used by terrorists and Jihadists to bring recruits on-board. The highly unpopular existence of Guantanamo Bay also makes it more risky for intelligence sources to come out and provide useful information that they might otherwise be willing to provide. This is because, for many Muslims, Guantánamo stands as a confirmation of the low regard in which they believe the United States holds them.[1] Some of this stems from the association of detention at Guantanamo with the specifically anti-Islamic abuses which have reportedly occurred there, such as allegations of having a guard dog carry the Koran in its mouth, guards scrawling obscenities inside Korans, kicking Korans across the floor, urinating on the Koran, ridiculing the Koran, walking on the Koran, and tearing off the cover and throwing the Koran into trash or dirty water.[2] These associations not only make it easier for terrorists to recruit by inciting anti-American sentiments, but also harm the US' ability to argue that the War on Terror is not directed against all Muslims. President Obama announced in 2009 that closing the Guantanamo Bay detention centre would allow the US to reclaim the moral high ground and thus better prosecute the War on Terror.[3]''

The existence of the detention facility creates a false sense of security and compromises principles of liberty. The US is in a worse position to combat terror abroad when the government makes unprincipled, piecemeal determinations about the cases in which to use preventive detention.[4]

[1] Sengupta, Somini and Masoods, Salman. "Guantanamo Comes to Define U.S. to Muslims". New York Times. May 21, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/21/international/asia/21gitmo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin 

[2] Cohn, Marjorie. "Close Guantánamo Prison". TruthOut. May 23, 2005. www.archive.truthout.org

[3] Rhee, Foon. "Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture." The Boston Globe. 22 January 2009. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/01/obama_orders_gu.html

[4] Roth, Kenneth. "After Guantanamo." Foreign Affairs. May/June 2008. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63393/kenneth-roth/after-guantanamo (Full article requires subscription.)

Guantanamo Bay didn't create anti-Americanism in the Islamic world. Al-Qaeda existed and carried out 9/11 before Guantanamo bay was established, so it is unlikely that closing the detention centre would make any of those who hate the US now reconsider. Furthermore, closing the facility could be seen as a propaganda victory for the US' enemies, and further embolden terrorist organisations.

UN Reports indicate that the treatment of detainees since their arrests, and the conditions of their confinement, have had profound effects on the mental health of many of them. The treatment and conditions include the capture and transfer of detainees to an undisclosed overseas location, sensory deprivation and other abusive treatment during transfer; detention in cages without proper sanitation and exposure to extreme temperatures; minimal exercise and hygiene; systematic use of coercive interrogation techniques; long periods of solitary confinement; cultural and religious harassment; denial of or severely delayed communication with family; and the uncertainty generated by the indeterminate nature of confinement and denial of access to independent tribunals. These conditions have led in some instances to serious mental illness, over 350 acts of self-harm in 2003 alone, individual and mass suicide attempts and widespread, prolonged hunger strikes. The severe mental health consequences are likely to be long term in many cases, creating health burdens on detainees and their families for years to come.[1] Such conditions are clearly not acceptable to a nation such as the US which prides itself on its justice system and respect for human rights. The detention centre must be closed to the US can end its association with such practices.

[1] United Nations Economic and Social Council. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006.

It is possible to reform treatment at Guantanamo Bay without closing the facility. The conditions in the facility have in fact greatly improved since its establishment and in many ways differ from the public's negative perception of it.[1] But even if in fact these negative reports of the conditions at Guantanamo are true, it is likely that many of those detained at Guantanamo may not be even more anti-American than when they arrived, so releasing them could mean they pose an even greater threat to the US.

[1] Davis, Morris D. “The Guantánamo I Know”. New York Times. 26 June 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/opinion/26davis.html

Prisoners have been detained at Guantanamo for long periods without clear charges being filed and without trial. This is a violation of the international legal principle of habeas corpus. One of the primary problems is that, without clear charges and a presentation of evidence against a suspect, the suspect cannot contest the charges and prove their own innocence. And, as a matter of fact, numerous detainees have been found innocent, but only after excessively long periods without being charged or brought before a court.[1]

Many Guantanamo detainees may have never committed terrorist acts or fought against US forces in Afghanistan at all; they were simply turned over by Northern Alliance and Pakistani warlords for bounties of up to $25,000. For almost seven years they have been held without a fair hearing or opportunity to demonstrate those facts. Courts who reviewed the cases of 23 detainees to see if there was reasonable evidence for their continued detention found no credible basis for detaining 22 of them.[2] Other detainees were captured in places where, at the time of their arrest, there was no armed conflict involving US forces. The case of the six men of Algerian origin detained in Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 2001 is a well-known and well-documented example.[3]

Therefore the only way to resolve these issues is to try all  the detainees at Guantanamo Bay in US courts, and release any against whom charges cannot be brought. Former US Secretary of Defense Colin Powell has endorsed this reasoning, arguing that "I would get rid of Guantanamo and the military commission system and use established procedures in federal law[...]It's a more equitable way, and more understandable in constitutional terms,"[4] US courts are fully capable of dealing with terrorist trials, as shown by the fact that they have rendered 145 convictions in terror-related cases in the past.[5] Convictions in US courts would probably be seen internationally as having more legitimacy than those obtained through the current system of military tribunals, which is often viewed as rigged against the defendants.[6] Only by allowing full due process in American courts can the rights of the detainees be uaranteed and their guilt or innocence truly established.

[1] New York Times Opinion. "The President's Prison". New York Times. March 25, 2007. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E6D71530F936A15750C0A9619C8B63

[2] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990491721225253.html 

[3] United Nations Economic and Social Council. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006.

[4] Reuters. "Colin Powell says Guantanamo should be closed". Reuters. 10 June 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/10/us-usa-powell-idUSN1043646920070610

[5] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990491721225253.html 

[6] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990491721225253.html

Reforms can always be made to the legal process at Guantanamo, and so this is not a reason to close the facility or to try the detainees in US courts. Moreover, much of the credible and reliable evidence that justifies the continued detention cannot be admitted in US courts for legal reasons, such as the fact that those captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere were not read their Miranda rights on their arrest. Other cases involve evidence that is insufficient for trial but still sufficient to determine that release is an unacceptable security risk.[1] Furthermore, If transferred to U.S. courts, some of the detainees might be freed because of the aggressive interrogation techniques used against them. Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 plot, was interrogated so severely at Guantanamo Bay that Bush administration officials said he was tortured and did not refer his case for prosecution.[2]

[1] Wall Street Journal. "Obama and Guantanamo". Wall Street Journal. 22 January 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258578172604569.html 

[2] Fox News. "Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials". Fox News. January 21, 2009. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/21/families-outraged-obama-suspend-guantanamo-war-crimes-trials/

The existence of Guantanamo Bay is cited by terrorists as a tool of "the great Satan" and is seen by Muslims in general as a demonstration of US disregard for their dignity. It is, in turn, an effective tool used by terrorists and Jihadists to bring recruits on-board. The highly unpopular existence of Guantanamo Bay also makes it more risky for intelligence sources to come out and provide useful information that they might otherwise be willing to provide. This is because, for many Muslims, Guantánamo stands as a confirmation of the low regard in which they believe the United States holds them.[1] Some of this stems from the association of detention at Guantanamo with the specifically anti-Islamic abuses which have reportedly occurred there, such as allegations of having a guard dog carry the Koran in its mouth, guards scrawling obscenities inside Korans, kicking Korans across the floor, urinating on the Koran, ridiculing the Koran, walking on the Koran, and tearing off the cover and throwing the Koran into trash or dirty water.[2] These associations not only make it easier for terrorists to recruit by inciting anti-American sentiments, but also harm the US' ability to argue that the War on Terror is not directed against all Muslims. President Obama announced in 2009 that closing the Guantanamo Bay detention centre would allow the US to reclaim the moral high ground and thus better prosecute the War on Terror.[3]''

The existence of the detention facility creates a false sense of security and compromises principles of liberty. The US is in a worse position to combat terror abroad when the government makes unprincipled, piecemeal determinations about the cases in which to use preventive detention.[4]

[1] Sengupta, Somini and Masoods, Salman. "Guantanamo Comes to Define U.S. to Muslims". New York Times. May 21, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/21/international/asia/21gitmo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin 

[2] Cohn, Marjorie. "Close Guantánamo Prison". TruthOut. May 23, 2005. www.archive.truthout.org

[3] Rhee, Foon. "Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture." The Boston Globe. 22 January 2009. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/01/obama_orders_gu.html

[4] Roth, Kenneth. "After Guantanamo." Foreign Affairs. May/June 2008. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63393/kenneth-roth/after-guantanamo (Full article requires subscription.)

Guantanamo Bay didn't create anti-Americanism in the Islamic world. Al-Qaeda existed and carried out 9/11 before Guantanamo bay was established, so it is unlikely that closing the detention centre would make any of those who hate the US now reconsider. Furthermore, closing the facility could be seen as a propaganda victory for the US' enemies, and further embolden terrorist organisations.

UN Reports indicate that the treatment of detainees since their arrests, and the conditions of their confinement, have had profound effects on the mental health of many of them. The treatment and conditions include the capture and transfer of detainees to an undisclosed overseas location, sensory deprivation and other abusive treatment during transfer; detention in cages without proper sanitation and exposure to extreme temperatures; minimal exercise and hygiene; systematic use of coercive interrogation techniques; long periods of solitary confinement; cultural and religious harassment; denial of or severely delayed communication with family; and the uncertainty generated by the indeterminate nature of confinement and denial of access to independent tribunals. These conditions have led in some instances to serious mental illness, over 350 acts of self-harm in 2003 alone, individual and mass suicide attempts and widespread, prolonged hunger strikes. The severe mental health consequences are likely to be long term in many cases, creating health burdens on detainees and their families for years to come.[1] Such conditions are clearly not acceptable to a nation such as the US which prides itself on its justice system and respect for human rights. The detention centre must be closed to the US can end its association with such practices.

[1] United Nations Economic and Social Council. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006.

It is possible to reform treatment at Guantanamo Bay without closing the facility. The conditions in the facility have in fact greatly improved since its establishment and in many ways differ from the public's negative perception of it.[1] But even if in fact these negative reports of the conditions at Guantanamo are true, it is likely that many of those detained at Guantanamo may not be even more anti-American than when they arrived, so releasing them could mean they pose an even greater threat to the US.

[1] Davis, Morris D. “The Guantánamo I Know”. New York Times. 26 June 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/opinion/26davis.html

The current operations of Guantanamo Bay are aiding the War on Terror, and closing the facility would harm the US' security situation. Putting an important section of a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda in prison obviously stops the coordination and the indoctrination of younger members. This makes it harder for terrorist groups to operate effectively. The presumption is that during that time the USA will have gathered adequate intelligence and information upon which to destroy the group and the war on terror is that little bit nearer to ending. Former US Vice President Dick Cheney has stated that, intelligence-wise, "Guantanamo has been very, very valuable [in the war on terror."[1]

Moreover, if released many Guantanamo detainees will likely return to terrorism.[5] Many of those that have been already released from Guantanamo done just that. The Washington Post reported in 2005 that at least 10 of the 202 detainees released from Guantanamo were later captured or killed while fighting U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is a relatively high number, given the fact that only a small percentage of those that returned to terrorism would later be caught or killed. One former detainee went on to become the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, for example.[2]  The Bush administration detained these enemy combatants because of their high likelihood to commit future crimes or their past history. The most dangerous detainees include the perpetrators of 9/11, the American embassy bombings of 1998, the USS Cole bombing of 2000, and the Bali bombings of 2002. [6]

Finally, trying detainees in US courts presents a catch-22: in some cases, the evidence required to build a case for trial would compromise the same intelligence sources that make information-gathering possible [4]. During the trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the “blind sheik”) and members of his terror cell for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, prosecutors turned over a list of 200 unindicted conspirators to the defense - as the civilian criminal justice system required them to do. Within 10 days, the list made its way to downtown Khartoum, and Osama bin Laden knew that the U.S. government was on his trail. By giving this information to the defense in that terrorism case, the U.S. courts gave al Qaeda valuable information about which of its agents had been uncovered.[3] Therefore the Guantanamo Bay detention centre should not be closed as this would harm the War on Terror and US national security.

[1] Reuters. “Don't close Guantanamo until terror war ends: Cheney”. Reuters. 15 December 2008. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/15/us-cheney-guantanamo-idUSTRE4BE6T120081215

[2] Worth, Robert F. “Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief”. New York Times. 22 January 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html?hp 

[3] The Washington Times Editorial. “Obama and Gitmo”. The Washington Times. 12 November 2008. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/12/obama-and-gitmo/

 [4] The Chicago Tribune. "Beyond Guantanamo." The Chicago Tribune. 22 January 2009. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-01-22/news/0901210984_1_federal-court-criminal-justice-system-military-commissions

 [5] Cornyn, John. "Sen. Cornyn: Closing Guantanamo Could Make America Less Safe." Texas Insider. 23 January 2009. http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=4870

 [6] Joscelyn, Thomas. "Clear and Present Danger." The Weekly Standard. 1 December 2008. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/845xcgce.asp?pg=1

After years of detention and separation from the battle field and terrorist networks, many Guantanamo detainees have no more value to US intelligence gathering efforts and national security, and so this is not a reason to continue their detention. Moreover, there are tens of thousands of anti-American terrorists around the world. Releasing a handful of the 250 detainees that are actually terrorists but that can't be tried in the US would be a drop in the bucket for terrorism and the war on terror.

Guantanamo Bay and the threat of detention helps deter terrorists. This coupled with the lack of a trial adds to the fear of the place and thus denounces terrorism. What is a deterrent and why is it necessary? A deterrent is something which persuades someone not to act in a certain way. Similar to the accumulation of nuclear missiles actually deterring a war between large nations, a deterrent can be created around something deemed morally wrong (a prison which may/may not breech human rights) and yet help the greatest number of people and is, thus, justifiable. The whole basis of terrorism is formed upon an ideology and stems from indoctrination. If there is a seed of doubt then it is likely that the person in question will not commit acts of terror.

The "deterrent effect" of Guantanamo on terrorists cannot be confirmed. This is mainly due to the fact that terrorists' feelings or fears in regards to the Guantanamo Bay prison cannot be statistically gathered. Similarly, the terrorists posing a threat to the safety of Western Nations are typically so ideologically fanatical and assured that their path is the righteous one, that there is nothing that would persuade them otherwise, including the risk of imprisonment at Guantanamo. These are often people who are willing to die for their cause.

The US Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded 'all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.' US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees.[1]

Moreover, enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay are afforded a form of habeas corpus (ie. charging the imprisoned with a specific crime), as each detainee accused receives a copy of the charges in his native language.[2] Claims that most of the prisoners are unconnected with terror organisations are not supported by the intelligence evidence that exists. US Defense officials have stated that 95% of detainees are connected to al Qaeda, the Taliban or their associates, and more than 70% have had a role in attacks on U.S. or coalition forces.[3]  Military boards perform yearly reviews for continued detention, and prisoners are assigned court advocates.[4] In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay inmates have the right to appeal their cases to US federal courts.[5]

Therefore complaints that sufficient justice and due process does not exist at Guantanamo bay are unfounded. Trying the most dangerous terrorists at Guantanamo in civilian courts will just give them a forum in which to grandstand.

[1] Davis, Morris D. “The Guantánamo I Know”. New York Times. 26 June 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/opinion/26davis.html 

[2] Davis, Morris D. “The Guantánamo I Know”. New York Times. 26 June 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/opinion/26davis.html 

[3] Reuters. “Pentagon urges Congress to keep Guantanamo open”. Reuters. 9 May 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/09/idUSN09281838

[4] Washington Post. "Close Guantanamo?" Washington Post. 22 June 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101519.html

[5] Greenhouse, Linda. "Justices, 5-4, Back Detainee Appeals for Guantanamo." New York Times. 13 June 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/13scotus.html

The fact that the majority of detainees may be guilty of terror-related crimes or attacks doesn't justify the continued detention of those who were clearly detained under mistaken information, and who will only be cleared through trial in a civilian court. Otherwise justice will never be truly served at Guantanamo Bay.