Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
BY Andy Post
PUBLISHED: 11/24/2008
President-elect Barack Obama has voiced his intent to immediately close Guantanamo Bay prison under the premise of restoring international cooperation — a major theme of his campaign. But should abstract international agreements like the Geneva Conventions be used to protect “civilian” terrorists and suspects simply because they do not wear the badge of a recognized national military? The answer is no and the facility at Guantanamo ought to remain open under increased observation to fulfill its purpose to the U.S. military and the American people.
For years, skeptics have referred to civil rights and international criticism as the catalyst for closing the doors of the prison, located in Cuba. This viewpoint ignores the entire intent of stationing such a facility outside of U.S. soil: To avoid the messy lack of distinction between civilians and military operatives in a constant conflict like the war on terror. Although the Taliban have no military recognition on the battlefield, their intent is nothing but militant and their battlefield is the world over. Twenty-first century threats to the national security of the United States became clear on Sept. 11, 2001, and those threats still exist today. It is essential that the military have the power to hold those foreign enemies that do not wear a uniform but still pose a threat.
Guantanamo has admittedly had its fair share of bad public relations. Accordingly, officials must focus on strict guidelines and open policies that they have been employing. Congressional members, governors and even foreign leaders have been invited to tour Guantanamo in order to defuse rumors and false allegations that have created higher tension levels between the United States and other nations.
This openness to the world is one reason why it is imperative Obama’s national security team keep the doors of Guantanamo open. President George W. Bush has made it a priority to return prisoners to their home countries after it has been determined they are not a threat, bringing the current number of detainees to its lowest level ever — only a few hundred. But some are still calling for moving the process onto American soil, which would be a terrible mistake. Dr. James Carafano , former professor at the U.S. Military Academy and a defense expert at the Heritage Foundation, agrees that Guantanamo is fulfilling all of the legal obligations that a U.S. detention center would require anyway, including right to a lawyer and habeas corpus, release of innocent prisoners and the process of collecting intelligence. So the argument that a U.S. version of Guantanamo would make more procedural sense is questionable.
Critics will not stop with Guantanamo, and it is naïve to believe that our image abroad will change overnight by closing it. Obama should make the decision through a security lens, since protecting the American people will be his absolute priority upon taking office. Under a security premise, Guantanamo has followed all necessary U.S. laws and regulations, and the resources necessary to relocate its processes outweigh the benefits of shutting it down.
The security risks of potentially having to release any dangerous combatants in the closing of Guantanamo are too great. Even Bush and John McCain have called for the closing — but also logically concluded it cannot be done until the fate of suspected terrorists is certain.
Andy Post welcomes comments at apost@mndaily.com.
16 Comments
To flag an inappropriate comment please login.
Wow, nice logic
Dear Andy,
Please stop writing to the Daily.
Also, shut it.
PS. No more words out of you.
PPS. Be quiet
the problem with logic
Quiggly,
Andy's thoughts are logical...the problem with logic is that liberals are not logical, or haven't you heard that liberalism is a brain disease?
So maybe it is you who needs to shut up!
PS. Get you some help on that mental disease...people like you are what is wrong with not just America, but the world. It is so liberal to want to silence everyone with a different opinion than yourselves.
PPS. Zip it you Kool-Aid drinking pinhead!
U got it
I've no problem with dissent so long as its rational and not laughably talking-point-esque-ish-like.
U voted 4 Palin didnt u?
Best,
Quiggzorzz!!1!
The title tells all.
It is telling that when I saw the title of this column, I knew that Andy ("Token Right-Winger") Post had written it.
I submit that these token right-wingers that the Editorial Board keeps around to laugh at do not actually make any right-wing arguments; they instead act as straw men for the benefit of the Daily's left-wing correspondents, who point to them and their columns as examples of how ridiculous the right-wing really is.
Ha
I certainly hope that's true. I can't imagine any other reason why someone would argue AGAINST protecting the rights of another human being or FOR keeping open a prison that defies such rights.
Rights for terrorists and non-terrorists.
One could, of course, argue that if the Guantanamo detainees actually wanted any Western-style rights, they would not be fighting in aid of establishing a theocracy to topple them in the dramatic style of the Taliban. But this, of course, does not apply to people who are not al-Qaeda terrorists, but were stuck in Guantanamo just for being of the wrong ethnicity.
Rights???
Terriorst shouldn't have any rights...NONE!!!...do you people not understand that??? What do you liberal nut jobs not get??? These people want to kill all Americans...every man women and child...Including you!Rights my ASS! What about the rights of the people that died on 911? What about the rights of those people that had family members and friends that died that day?
Do you realy think these animals give a damm about human rights? They lost there rights as a human when they commited their crimes. Do you think for one min. that they have any respect for human life? Their acts are hate crimes...and this should not be forgotten!
Holy Crap
Calm down, Hannity.
BTW, "animals"? Animals?
U do realize that most Guantanamo detainees are innocent, right? No, u dont. U just parrot the latest Fox talking points.
WOW!!!! Why do you use so
WOW!!!! Why do you use so much punctuation??????? Is it because...of...all...the LIBERAL NUT JOBS?????!!!!!! GEE!!!! YOU? MAKE! A STELLAR (and rational)...ARGUMENT!!!!!!
Logic
Here is the main sentence I take issue with:
"The security risks of potentially having to release any dangerous combatants in the closing of Guantanamo are too great."
Post's underlying assumption here is that closing Guantanamo=Releasing the prisoners. I heartily disagree. I do not believe anyone is advocating for the release of prisoners who have been convicted and are known to be dangerous. Post should cease in his apparent assumption of ALL prisoners' automatic guilt. If the military picks someone up and puts them in Guantanamo on the basis that one unnamed witness said that s/he provided material support to a known terrorist (which, in all honesty, could constitute the sale of a loaf of bread to a known terrorist, or a taxi cab ride), is that person inherently guilty and deserving of conviction?
No. No more than Post would be if someone accused him of stealing a piece of bubblegum from the Gopher Express. Closing Guantanamo would more likely mean transferring prisoners elsewhere, to a facility that maintains standards, to have trials heard in courts that afford basic rights to prisoners.
After all, would it not be more desirable to convict these prisoners under a trusted, open court system with chances of appeal, allowing agreement that the decision was just?
Symbolism and Recruitment Tool
The Guantanamo Bay prison is a symbol as much as anything at this point. It symbolizes things that the US pledged to never participate in, including torture and denial of due process. If we really believe in the words in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, then there really is no choice. The alternative is to look like a nation of hypocrites, which also aides in the recruitment of new terrorists.
Andy's article fails to appreciate the significance of this symbolism or the threat of Guantanamo Bay as a recruitment tool. Also the functions he mentions could be performed at any number of military prisions on or off of US soil not named Guantanamo Bay.
The risks of keeping the prison open far outweigh the drawbacks.
Know the difference between Taliban and Al-Qaeda
Andy doesn't know the difference between Taliban and Al-Qaeda:
"Although the Taliban have ... and their battlefield is the world over." WRONG!
Taliban only want to flush foreigners from Afghanistan. It is Al-Qaeda whose battlefield is the world over.
Know your enemy Andy! This lack of knowledge of enemy is the exact thing that is forcing us to imprison guilty and innocent alike without much attention to details of what, who, where, when, why? The most basic rule in policing and reporting.
The Utmost Absurdity
Mr. Post,
You're column in today's daily thoroughly pissed me off. An article with such a title and ludicrous content should not grace the pages of the daily. The fact that we operate a prison on the Cuban mainland, a nation we do not have diplomatic or trade relations with, boggles the mind. Beyond that, the prison itself is has highly questionable motivations and has been documented as having torture going on within its walls (at least any rational person would consider it torture). Moreover, keeping prisoners for extended periods of time without trial is only going to infuriate Islamic radicals and give them valuable recruiting material. If Thomas Jefferson (or any of the founding fathers) were aware of the insane reversal of the United States' birth as a nation founded on principles adamantly against imperialism to the current state of our nation in global affairs, he would be appalled. I implore the daily to remove Mr. Post from its staff.
Good day,
Patrick Owens
owens128@umn.edu
Mr Owens comments in response
Mr Owens comments in response to the editorial in today's post thoroughly pissed me off. I implore the "Daily" to remove him from the authorized commenter list.
Mr Owens, your comments to the "Daily" are just as ludicrous, you claim to love liberty but apparently only so long as your opinions are the only ones heard. I don't believe in everything the author wrote or that it is completely accurate but censoring those opinions is worse than listening to them.
Even though I disagree with
Even though I disagree with Mr. Post, I am happy to see someone offer an opinion that is different than many others at the "U". My biggest concern based on people's response to Mr. Post's article are the reactions that want to eliminate one's right to offer a "different" opinion.
thanks
Question.
Post would be an embarrassment to our political science department were he to, somehow, finish his major there.
"President George W. Bush has made it a priority to return prisoners to their home countries after it has been determined they are not a threat, bringing the current number of detainees to its lowest level ever — only a few hundred."
There's no proof of Bush making a priority to do this. The release of several prisoners to make room for new ones does not a "priority" make.
"Critics will not stop with Guantanamo, and it is naïve to believe that our image abroad will change overnight by closing it. "
Not big on symbolism, tactics, or strategy are ya? The fact that you don't understand why Guantanamo needs to be closed proves just how clueless you are.
"For years, skeptics have referred to civil rights and international criticism as the catalyst for closing the doors of the prison, located in Cuba. This viewpoint ignores the entire intent of stationing such a facility outside of U.S. soil: To avoid the messy lack of distinction between civilians and military operatives in a constant conflict like the war on terror."
Aside from the "WOT" being a brand name slogan for rubes like Post to cling to when they're scared it's just bad policy to NOT make a clear distinction between civilians and military operatives. If the people at Gitmo are guilty then try them and punish them as needed - firing squad, hanging, life in prison, whatever. If they're innocent, then let them go.
Andy, why are you against the rule of law? You hate America.
Post new comment