I'm saying its a bad policy. It is more harmful to the USA than helpful.
Why?
It sets a horrible precedent that the USA stands for invading foreign countries, capturing anonymous people and detaining them indefinitely without explaining the justification. It's sort of like the high end version of the Lebanese terrorists 20 years ago that would capture foreigners in Lebanon, and hold them hostage for 2-10 years. THAT was totally unacceptable to us, what makes you think the rest of the world will view our behaviour at Gitmo any differently than we view hostage takers in Lebanon?
So that harm can be summed up as
1- Hurting the US's image worlwide. Both the nation's who's citizens are held in Gitmo and the nations which have no citizens held but see the activity generally have a very negative view of it. Were the US to "charge" the detainees, or at least explain the justification for still holding them, the rest of the world would at least have something to weigh against their opposition to Gitmo.
2- We are sanctioning a policy of indefinite detention without charge as acceptable for every nation. If we can do it, then so can any other country that feels various individuals are plotting its downfall. China theoretically could nab all the Chinese journalists that have defected and are writing critical journals about the Chinese government, and hold them forever without trial in Chinese prison as "enemies of the state". That sounds horribly wrong, but we're doing the same thing in Gitmo to whoever is still there.
3- The benefits to Gitmo are either minimal, or the proof of the potential future danger of the Gitmo inmates should be made public. The inmates can't have any additional inside knowledge after 3 months of capitivity, so the justification for holding them must be based on how much of a threat to the USA that they represent. It's hard to argue how much of a threat that they represent when we don't know the justification for holding those still inside, but logically the benefits either are minimal, or the proof that they are significant should be available. All I am saying is that it would be better to share the proof (if it exists), and reduce #1 above, than to not share it. If the government refuses to share it, I'll choose not to trust their assessment and go with my own. |
