Closing Guantanamo isn't all that complicated

[Hippo_Tron]

I've been hearing a lot of right wingers talk about how closing Guantanamo is overly complicated which might cause Obama not to do it and frankly I call bullshit.

Now I'm not a lawyer and I realize that from the legal end there may be some things to work out. I do have confidence that Obama's Attorney General will be able to handle these legal issues with no problems. But the arguments against closing Guantanamo seem to be mostly logistical and not legal. Those I do feel that I am prepared to answer.

To me this seems pretty simple. If a person is being held at Guantanamo because they were captured on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan they should be treated as Prisoners of War. If they were captured in the United States then they either need to be indicted or released. If they are indicted then they should be held in a US Prison while awaiting trial.

The argument that we can't hold them in the United States because sympathetic Muslims will break them out is Islamophobic bullshit. When a right winger asks me "well would you want a terrorist prison in your back yard?" I respond, "I would much rather have that than a regular maximum security prison in my back yard."

Also the argument that although they may have not been terrorists they will be now does not hold any muster. A society that has rule of law cannot imprison people for crimes that they might commit.

[dem629]

1. Under that plan, the gov't would likely change their status to POW and leave it at that.

Then put them...wherever. Does it matter at that point?

Just asking.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. They would likely be tried in a military court

[pokercat999]

2. Guantanamo is more than a prison. It is a US military base

on soil belonging to a sovereign nation that does not want us there. My understanding is (may be wrong, if so please correct me)that we have a lease on the property. The government of Cuba no longer honors the lease, wants their property back and refuses to cash our rent checks. We should start closing the base and prepare to leave the island starting on Jan 21th 2009 and be completely gone within 6 months or less.

[Eryemil]

3. As far as I know only the first check was cashed

Which apparently made the deal binding. Or so the American government argues. I've no idea about the legalities of the issue.

[4themind]

4. I think there are a few issues but not insurmountable ones

One problem is in finding places to accept detainees that we want to release. Some may have been citizens of nations that no longer "exist" in their prior government form (Iraq/Afghanistan i.e.) Others may be citizens of nations that refuse to take them back in. So there could be some logistical issues that we may have to work out there, and automatically making them U.S. citizens may not be seen as the most palatable or risk-averse thing to do. We'll have to see but I hope it is closed down, but keeping security in mind in the process.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. One problem I've heard mentioned on NPR

is that most countries don't want to take in the detainees that we decide to release, although presumably, those who we decide to release probably weren't guilty of anything other than perhaps being at the wrong place at the wrong time so I would think that we would be able to find SOMEWHERE for them to go. Also, other countries might be in a better mood now that we will have a new President come January. I think Obama's team will be smart enough to figure something out but having some logistical problems with finding someplace for the detainees whom we decide not to try should not justify keeping them detained indefinitely without good reason. There's got to be SOMEWHERE we can send them.