Don T Close Guantanamo: Article Analysis

Jennifer Daskal, the author of “Don’t Close Guantanamo” is a renowned American lawyer who is specialized in criminal law and national security law. She has served as the senior counterterrorism adviser to the “Human Rights Watch” and has also helped the US Department of Justice in prosecuting terror suspects in civilian rather than military courts. (Jennifer). The article was written in 2013, years after Guantanamo prison facility was widely exposed for its human rights violations and labeled the “Gulag of our times” by the Amnesty International and remains the cause of great anti American sentiment till this day (Khan). In the article, Jennifer, once an ardent supporter of the closure of the facility discusses why she changed her opinion.
Daskal has in no way given up on the idea that the Guantanamo inmates deserve humane treatment and a respectable living environment. In contrast, she has merely come to the realization that the “release or prosecute” demand of human rights activists is simply not practical. Even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that Guantanamo has shut down, the truth remains that until the war on terror continues, neither will all detainees be released nor will America stop taking in new prisoners. So, where do all these highly dangerous terrorists relocate? To America? Or to another offshore territory? The fact remains that thanks to the work of civil society pressure groups, the living conditions at Guantanamo, according to the author have improved and would be much better than those at either option. Furthermore, if the precedent is set of keeping prisoners on American soil without trial, then the world can expect more violations of international law by the States in the upcoming years. So, until the war with Al Qaeda ends and until it can be safely assumed that all prisoners will
By relying solely on logic and using objective language, Daskel neutralizes the threat of antagonizing readers who may have stood on either side of the proposal. She uses the title in question to immediately attract the attention of the reader, though, if one closely analyses the text, one comes to the obvious conclusion that at the end of the day, she does want to Guantanamo to close, but, only in the long run when there is a viable alternative available. However, had she provided data and research to support her assumptions of better conditions at Guantanamo or the imminent end of Al Qaeda, her article would have had an unquestionably concrete