FP Logo Your portal to global politics, economics, and ideas
FP Logo
Article Index
Search Site
FP Archive article
free registration required
back issue only
Home
Free FP e-Alert
Submit Free FP e-Alert
More Info
Worldwide Links
FP Forum
FP in the News
FP e-Alert Archives
Surprises of Globlization
Press Room

Current Article
Think Again: Guantánamo
By Karen Greenberg
Page 1 of 2
Posted January 2009
The risks posed by released detainees are overblown. Closing the prison at Guantánamo won’t be easy, but that’s a small price to pay to right a legal and moral wrong seven years in the making.


Brennan Linsley-Pool/Getty Images
The way forward: Most detainees will be found to pose no danger to the United States and released.

“The Detainees at Guantánamo Are Hardened Terrorists”

Not the majority. Since the prison opened seven years ago, confusion has reigned about exactly who is detained at Guantánamo. Officials at the prison initially knew almost nothing about their first 300 detainees beyond the hearsay reports that they were the “worst of the worst.” The detainees’ names, countries of origin, and even the languages they spoke were not immediately apparent. The circumstances of their capture and their association with al Qaeda or the Taliban were equally opaque. Only after investigators from various U.S. agencies began interviewing and interrogating the detainees, and combing through information from foreign police departments and intelligence agencies, did they find that many of their quarry had nothing to do with terrorism at all.

Even today, evidence to back up criminal charges against most of the prisoners -- now numbering 243 -- is scant. By all reports, about four dozen or so of the detainees will eventually be brought to trial, including the 14 high-value detainees that were transferred to Guantánamo in 2006, among them Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, another alleged planner of the 9/11 attacks. Another group may be labeled too dangerous to release due to statements they have made and associations they are suspected to have. For most of these men, there is insufficient evidence to convict them at trial, or the evidence could be rejected on the grounds that it was coerced and therefore is not admissible. A large group, likely the majority of the remaining 243, will be categorized as neither indictable nor posing a danger to the United States and released.

“Gitmo Detainees Released in the United States Will Pose a Danger to Civilians”

No. A “not in my backyard” attitude has dominated talk of detainee releases: No one wants them, for fear they’ll pose a danger to civilians or plan fresh attacks.

But there are no plans, to my knowledge, to release any of the Guantánamo detainees onto U.S. soil. Therefore, the only danger would come from their breaking out of prison or attracting a terrorist attack. On the first point, the U.S. military has more than enough professional expertise to detain these prisoners securely. If U.S. prison authorities are capable of incarcerating hardened criminals without fear of their escaping, similar conditions can be created for these detainees. And an attack around one of the prisons is unlikely; among the places named as temporary holding facilities are prisons in South Carolina, Kansas, and Southern California. The Department of Homeland Security and other parts of the national security matrix have spent seven years devising ways of preventing terrorist attacks in far more densely populated and vulnerable locations.

“If Released Abroad, Former Gitmo Detainees Will Mount Attacks Against U.S. Targets”

In most instances, no. The specter of releasing a future terrorist has loomed large over the Guantánamo debate. According to U.S. government statistics, as many as 61 of the detainees who have been transferred or released from Guantánamo (from a total of 557 releases and transfers during the past seven years) have demonstrated some sort of terrorism-related activity since their release. But so far, those releases that proved problematic were ordered not by civilian courts after weighing evidence, but by executive-branch officials acting unilaterally without judicial supervision. Many of the now-free detainees were released early to European countries as a matter of diplomatic courtesy rather than as a result of responsible legal review. With a more serious evidentiary hearing to assess the potential danger posed by the detainees, fewer such mistakes could be made.

Recently, two former Guantánamo detainees were arrested for rejoining terrorist groups in Yemen. Whether their radicalization came due to their incarceration at Gitmo, or whether their alleged terrorism association predated Guantánamo, the fact remains that there will always be some risk of returning the detainees home. Aggressive diplomacy over conditions of release and attentiveness to terrorism threats in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Afghanistan will of necessity be a large part of the transfer and release agreements the new administration creates.

“Closing Guantánamo Is Primarily a Legal Issue”

Nope, it’s largely a diplomatic one. It isn’t only personnel at the Defense Department and the Justice Department who need to put in overtime figuring out how to close the prison at Guantánamo. It’s also the diplomats at the State Department.

Nearly 800 terrorists have been held at Guantánamo during the past seven years. Nearly 560 of them have been released or transferred to their countries of origin or to third countries through diplomatic means. Of those returned, more than 300 have been sent either to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Most of those returns have been done absent any trial.


1                next

FOREIGN POLICY welcomes letters to the editor.
Readers should address their comments to Letters@ForeignPolicy.com.

Shop at FP
Subscribe to FP
Login
Username
Password


| Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us | Site Map | Subscribe |

 
FP Logo
1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
Site design by bevia.com; Programming by Enovational Design