The Pros And Cons Of Guantanamo Bay

In the past ten years, Guantanamo Bay has been under speculation. With the issues of water boarding and force-feeding, many have questioned its legitimacy of being a civil prison. The big debate is whether or not if Guantanamo Bay should continue to stay open. Although Guantanamo Bay keeps the world’s worst criminals detained, many believe that the detainees are not getting the proper necessities they need, such as food and water. With the issue of human rights, should be Guantanamo Bay closed down? And if so, what will happen to its prisoners?
Overview
Throughout history Guantanamo Bay has become United States’ most notorious prison. When it was opened in 2002, United States made the island into a prison for the detainees of 9/11. With the
horrible event that occurred, the American people believe that creating this prison was the right move as a country. According to the American Civil Liberty Union, 779 men have been incarcerated in Guantanamo bay since the prison opened in the beginning of 2002 and as of today 179 is still incarcerated (www.aclu.org). Throughout his time in office, President Bush and his administration has been able to silence critics by bending the truth about Guantanamo Bay. According to Terrorists and Fair Trial journal, the Bush Administration first got criticized for the unfair trial that the prisoners would face.
The administration made it impossible for the detainees to have a fair trial; the government would ensure the prisoners would have no access to a court or have any evidence. The Bush Administration had defended themselves by saying that the writ of habeas corpus did not qualify for the detainees because the prison was not in the U.S. territory. Also, they went further and said that the prisoners did have any of the rights that were issued at the Geneva Convention (Ambos, Poschadel
3). Throughout the 12 years of being opened, the American people changed their views about Guantanamo Bay. Stories began to come about the torturing of the prisoners in order to get information out of them. In the book Selling Guantanamo, the government laughed at the allegations of torturing and the secretary of defense during the Bush administration said that “the possibility that the absence of air-conditioning at Guantanamo might constitute torture”. However several years later, the Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other officials were shocked at the release of the torturing at the Abu Ghraib prison. The administration during the next couple of months gave vague answers on the torturing (Hickman 16). With the torturing at the Abu Ghraib prison, America was facing repercussions because they were breaking the laws that were made in the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention is an international law that regulates human rights with citizens and prisoners. The Bush Administration was able to persuade the world into believing that Guantanamo Bay was a necessity for the safety of the world. They defended themselves by calling the prisoners “unlawful combatants” rather than “prisoner of war”. They don’t believe that the detainees are “prisoners of war” because the military is “wearing uniforms, not showing their weapons, and had a chain in command” (Hickman 15). With the allegations of the torturing, the Bush Administration would tell America that they are getting information about terrorist groups and stopping attacks on America. America been in a state of paranoia since 9/11, thus giving the government flexibility to do “whatever it takes” to get information. In the book Guantanamo Bay and the Judicial-Moral Treatment of the Other, Members of the Senate Armed Service Committee, Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal, said that the interrogations would last up to fourteen hours and would have plastic chairs because the detainees weren’t allowed to use the bathroom. Also, the interrogators would point guns to the prisoner’s head while on their knees and would sometimes be beat them (Caseldine-Bracht 56). Along with being beaten by the officers during interrogations, there have been claims of torturing the prisoners by waterboarding them. Waterboarding, a form of torture in which the water is poured on a cloth that is over the face of the prisoner giving the sensation of drowning, has been exposed by many human right groups in Guantanamo Bay. In the website Propublica, a recent report held by the Human Rights said that 14 Libyans men that were detained in Guantanamo Bay claimed to have been waterboarded. When President Bush was asked about these allegations he said, “Of the thousands of terrorists we captured in the years after 9/11, about a hundred were placed into the CIA program. About a third of those were questioned using enhanced techniques. Three were waterboarded” (http://www.propublica.org/). With such harsh conditions, many prisoners have tried to commit suicide by going on hunger strikes however, military officials would force feed the prisoners. According to Waging Nonviolence, “In 2005, when 142 Guantánamo detainees stopped eating, their subsequent force-feedings caused 263 international doctors to write an open letter in the medical journal The Lancet that denounced the practice and called on doctors to stop participating” (http://wagingnonviolence.org/). In the website Vice, they have the released court document of the new protocol of force-feeding. In the document, it says that when an inmate goes on a hunger strike they become a danger to themselves. Thus, the medical officials have to tend to the inmates by externally feeding them. Videos of force-feeding have been made, however, the government refuses to share to the public because it “would harm national security and could be used by enemies of the United States as a propaganda tool” (https://news.vice.com/).
Court Cases on Guantanamo Bay In the years that it has been opened, Guantanamo Bay has been under speculation and has had court cases dealing with military’s approach that have been perceived as unconstitutional. The ruling of each case has shown how the public and courts have changed their views about Guantanamo Bay and would wish for an alternative methods that allows the inmates to been punished for their crimes in a civil way. According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, Rasel v.
Bush and Habib v. Bush were the initial cases that challenged the Presidential Executive Order in 2001, “which authorized indefinite detention without due process of law, as a violation of international law and the U.S. Constitution” (http://ccrjustice.org/). The government had argued that the detainees were not persecuted under military order, but in fact the “common law powers” (http://ccrjustice.org/). Furthermore, the government had claimed that the matter at hand was not a political question that was under the jurisdiction of the courts; these two claims caused both cases to be dismissed. This action caused the petition for habeas corpus to be void for non-US citizens detained outside the jurisdiction of the United
States. Rasel v. Bush got to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit but was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Years later, a case opened that made it to the Supreme Court. Boumediene v. Bush discussed the issue of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees. According to the website OYEZ, unlike Rasel v. Bush, Congress passed the Military Commission Act of 2006, which “eliminates federal courts' jurisdiction to hear habeas applications from detainees who have been designated (according to procedures established in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005) as enemy combatants” (http://www.oyez.org/). The Supreme Court ruled the Act to be unconstitutional because of “the procedures laid out in the Detainee Treatment Act are not adequate substitutes for the habeas writ, he MCA operates as an unconstitutional suspension of that writ” (http://www.oyez.org/). After Rasel v. Bush concluding with the prisoners unable to have habeas corpus, the issue of torturing became the forefront in media. In the website PBS, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was “ruled that the Bush administration's use of military commissions to try terrorist suspects violated the U.S. Code of Military Justice and Geneva Conventions” (http://www.pbs.org/). With classifying Hamdan under an “enemy combatants”, Hamdan did not have the rights that were in the Geneva Convention. The court ruled in Hamdan’s favor stating the term ““enemy combatants” violated the detained suspects' rights as provided in both the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Code of Military Justice” (http://www.pbs.org/).

What Should We Do? With the inhumane issues still at being present, Guantanamo Bay is under speculation about how to perceive. With the public opinion being so negative, Guantanamo Bay should gradually close by releasing prisoners that have been cleared and those who still are not go to high maximum security or go back to their home country. This decision would be chosen within a civilian court rather a military court. The Obama Administration had brought up the proposal of closing Guantanamo Bay when he became reelected for his second term. Unfortunately, he did not follow through with the proposal. With his low approval ratings due to the handling of ISIS, President Obama can increase his ratings by following through with what he promised before he was inaugurated. By gradually closing Guantanamo Bay, the Obama Administration will be able to keep their promise and have a civil way of handling terrorism. The reputation of Guantanamo Bay has hurt our relationships with other countries. Treating the prisoners in an inhumane way and not giving them a trial has hurt our relations with the EU. The prisoners would be tried in a civilian court rather than a military could because Philip Carter, senior fellow at the Center for New American Security, in an interview the Council on Foreign Relations said that civilian courts are found to be fairer to the plaintiff. Also, continuing to keep open Guantanamo the US is wasting an abundance of money. Carter discussed that continuing to keep Guantanamo open that “we're going to get down to such a small detainee population, for such a large facility, that's not accomplishing anything for us, and we ultimately need to close it, because we can't afford to keep that open” (http://www.cfr.org/). The option of keep or expand Guantanamo would give the American people a sense of safety because the most notorious criminals would not be on U.S. soil. However, the issue of human rights will still remain unresolved. The American people would lower Obama’s approval ratings more because he would flip flop on his promise. To close down at once would be far-reaching because of the tedious process that it entails. With Congress approvals and finding prisons, it is nearly impossible.
Conclusion
At the time it was opened, Guantanamo Bay was what America wanted. It gave Americans a sense of peace with imprisoning the world’s worst criminals. However, the government from the beginning has been manipulating the law and thus has been able to do whatever they want with no repercussions. With the idea of Guantanamo changing, America should close down the prison in order to improve their relationships with other countries. By closing Guantanamo Bay down, Harold and Kumar would actually be able to escape.