In his second day of office, Barack Obama requested a report on the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. Obama set a date to shut down the prison, showing his desire lead the nation in a moral and upstanding manner. While much is unknown of the prison, a bit more is to be discovered. The report,set to be delivered to the White House in a few days, supposedly says the facility passes the standards set by the Geneva Conventions. In other words, the study says that the prison is considered to be "humane" enough.
When the news came out that the end of Guantanamo Bay would be arriving soon, there were so many questions that needed to be answered. Nobody knew what kind of impact this would have on America. The answer to this question is still very much unknown, but we now know a bit more about the nature of what went on in the prison. Perhaps it is not the evil institution that so many speculated. So many believed this was a place of torture and completely inhumane treatment. Not to say that some cruel/disturbing/upsetting things have not happened there, but this should prove some of the critics wrong. But now, we have a camp that has passed inspection (if that is how you choose to look at it), holds potentially dangerous detainees, and is doomed to closure.
I really do appreciate Obama's focus on a moral America, but this premature closure was the incorrect thing to do. Why not request the report before the closure? The Obama administration would certainly benefit from a report showing that the prison does not meet the Geneva requirements, but it does not look like this is the case. It is almost impossible to know how valuable or worthless the detention facility is, as there is so much unknown regarding the issue. It seems that the President of the United States did not even know much, as he requested a report to tell him more.
With so much that was not known, it would have made more sense to wait until all the facts were gained to make such a (potentially) drastic move. Obama and his administration should have taken the feedback from this report and used the information to improve the facility, not erase it completely. Obama could have come out and set restrictions and guidelines for the officials and Guantanamo Bay that would enhance the liberties of the detainees, providing them with social and recreational interaction. America would have been able to keep the facility that houses so many that could be dangerous to American citizens while showing it is serious about turning a new leaf.
Now, the government has made things more difficult on itself. These detainees all have to be dealt with in some manner, within one year. Some of the focus will be taken off the economy and the war on terror in an effort to find the right place for all of these people. I realize I'm playing the role of "Monday morning quarterback," but instead of proving to the world that this is a new America, the Obama administration should have waited to close the facility. Now they must deal with the problem they have created: hundreds of detainees and an upcoming deadline.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/us/21gitmo.html?ref=politics
There is the article to which I am referring. Once the report comes out and we have more conclusive information, it will be easier to formulate an opinion.
There are two important parts of your post that I want to respond to:
“The prison is considered to be ‘humane’ enough. “
This is entirely the wrong way to look at the situation. The president should be focused on, in addition to legality, morality. The issue should not be whether the prison is “humane enough” but whether it is actually humane. We should not be cutting corners with how we treat our prisoners of war. It reflects upon the country in an extremely negative way and may influence how American prisoners of war are dealt with. Apparently water boarding is “humane enough” but is it really acceptable? It certainly resembles torture.
You classify the president’s decision to close Guantanamo as rushed and it may very well be rushed. However, with claims and rumors of unethical and immoral actions running rampant it may have been the best course of action. It does leave us in a bit of a predicament which you outline:
“These detainees all have to be dealt with in some manner, within one year.”
This is true and it is a huge problem. However, the issue of engaging in ethical behavior is once again at hand. The need to handle the situation concerning the detainees in Guantanamo Bay could even be positive in some ways. Certainly the people detained at Guantanamo Bay are the worst of the worst and have undoubtedly done some terrible things; however, does that mean that the United States should alter how it deals with them? They can (as I understand it but could be wrong) be held for an indefinite amount of time. They are not American citizens and Guantanamo is (obviously) not in America, but they should still be entitled to a speedy trial; it is not moral to hold them without considering what to do with them. The treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo could also affect how American prisoners of war are treated in either a positive or negative way depending on how Obama deals with them.
Thus far, it appears that our president is focused on both legality and morality when it comes to foreign policy. This is appropriate; it delivers a positive image to both the United States and other countries. His decision may have been rushed, but there is definitely a case for him engaging in some form of action and the action that he has chosen has, thus far, not proved to have significantly negative consequences.
In terms of your appreciation for Obama’s focus on moral America, regarding the closing of Guantanamo Bay, morality comes into question in all courses of action. Morality should be inquired in the closure of the complex and the release of hazardous and risky detainees out of imprisonment, as well as the long-ago possible course of action to keep Guantanamo open. Both routes of action ignite judgments of their own.
Where will the people of Guantanamo Bay go after the controversial closing of the prison? They could receive trials in the United States, to determine the severity of their crimes, which would then determine their placement in another high profile detainment facility, most likely across the Atlantic. If not, will they be eligible to freely use the criminal justice system in the United States to their advantage, and will the information obtained in “water-boarding” be admissible in court? Will the detainees eventually, through the American trial system, be able to permeate into society once again, and walk the streets? I could question for days on the true position of the current detainees in Guantanamo Bay after the closing; but the fundamental questions, although thorny, need to be answered.
In my opinion, the closing of the prison alone is not enough of an action by Obama, and I agree with your statement that the premature closure was the incorrect way to go. I will take it one step further and introduce the need for Obama to enact a federal law prohibiting the use of Guantanamo for any detention facility in the future. The shutting of Guantanamo Bay is an executive order, and executive orders can be reversed – the problem? In 4, 8 years, when a new president enters the White House, that man or woman will have full ability to reverse the action of the closing, and reopen the prison and allow for the continuation of the detainment facility. A law must be enacted, in my opinion; if and when Obama is open about not only his reasoning behind the closure but his honest plans for the future, will be the time that the American people should dig deeper into the true motivations behind this action.
I am all for the ethical treatment of prisoners and I do not believe the use of the "waterboarding" technique is moral. I have no problems with criticism of those things that are universally considered immoral and unethical. However, to clarify my original thoughts, Obama should have worked to fix the problem to work for him, not just erase it entirely.
It is not unethical to keep prisoners that pose a threat to a nation in the watchful hands of that nation. I do not endorse torture or anything that resembles it, just national security. I understand that torture is wrong and I would have like to have seen Obama's administration changing the ways of the prison. If not for reasons of national security, then for the problems of reviewing each prisoner within a year, Obama should have kept the prison open and change the manner in which it conducts itself.
Obama's decision was moral, but perhaps rushed and not thought out. The decision to wait on closure of the prison and revamp the manner in which it is run is both a moral and an educated choice.
A final thought: one may consider it immoral to put the nation in a potentially dangerous situation due to the possibility of release. Hopefully Obama will be able to handle this situation.
Post a Comment