Elevating the Debate about Guantanamo Bay

Believe me when I say that I understand why many people oppose the very existence of the Guantanamo Bay prison. I understand that it violates that rights of the American citizens who are imprisoned there. I understand that it tarnishes the reputation of the United States in the international community. I understand that government needs to have restrictions on military power in order to avert all forms of tyranny. However, at the same time I believe in the most foundational purpose of government: to protect the lives of the innocent citizens.

In this post, I do not intend to engage in a debate about the validity of the Guantanamo Bay detention center (Although, I would be happy to do so at a later time if there is such a desire). Rather, my intention is to simply uncover the fundamental reason why Guantanamo exists.

The debate surround Guantanamo is a fierce debate that is far from being resolved. But many debate the issue with out fully understanding the purpose of Guantanamo Bay. Those of us who support Guantanamo, and those who oppose it, should first understand the reason why it was create before we begin to debate its merits and flaws.

A recent article in the British newspaper The Times gives a compelling narrative of the why the Guantanamo was created.

At least a dozen former Guantánamo Bay inmates have rejoined al-Qaeda to fight in Yemen, The Times has learnt, amid growing concern over the ability of the country’s Government to accept almost 100 more former inmates from the detention centre. 

...

The 91 Yemeni prisoners in Guantánamo make up the largest national contingent among the 198 being held.

Six prisoners were returned to Yemen last month. After the Christmas Day bomb plot in Detroit, US officials are increasingly concerned that the country is becoming a hot-bed of terrorism. Eleven of the former inmates known to have rejoined al-Qaeda in Yemen were born in Saudi Arabia. The organisation merged its Saudi and Yemeni offshoots last year.

...

The US Government issued figures in May showing that 74 of the 530 detainees in Guantánamo were suspected or known to have returned to terrorist activity since their release. They included the commander of the Taleban in Helmand province, Mullah Zakir, whom the British Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, called “a key and seemingly effective tactical leader”. Among others who returned to terrorism was Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti who killed six Iraqis in Mosul in 2008.

The number believed to have “returned to the fight” in the May 2009 estimate was double that of a US estimate from June 2008. US officials acknowledged that more detainees were known to have reoffended since, but the number has been classified.

“There is a historic trend and it continues. I will only say that we have said there is a trend, we are aware of it, there is no denying the trend and we are doing our best to deal with this reality,” Mr Morrell said.

Officials said that a higher proportion of those still being held were likely to return to terrorism because they were considered more of a security threat than those selected in the early stages of the release programme.

These excerpts from the article (which I would recommend in full) display the risk that the Obama Administration is taking by closing Guantanamo Bay. The detention center is not a diabolical attempt to get revenge through torture; rather, it recognizes that many of the terrorists that the military is capturing in the War on Terrorism are very dangerous criminals.

While it is clear that American citizens should not be held in Guantanamo (for that would be fundamentally unconstitutional), and also that there has been a few instances of innocent people being held in Guantanamo Bay, this evidence shows that the military has valid reasons for indefinite detention of many of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.


The fundamental criticism of those who would close Guantanamo has always been that it would endanger the American people. In our present political environment, terrorist organizations have demonstrated that they are the biggest security threat to the America. Defeating terrorism, therefore, should be the highest priority for the Federal Government in defending the security of the United States. It is imperative that the USFG ensure that those detainees that they release from Guantanamo Bay will not go on to take the lives of American soldiers or the American public.


In the end, there ought to be a seriousness surrounding the debate over Guantanamo Bay. The decision that we make could mean the difference between dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of innocent lives protected or lost. Already, we have evidence that the USFG has failed by releasing prisoners from Guantanamo Bay who have gone one to murder innocent people. We cannot let that happen again.


Guantanamo Bay does not have to remain open. Rather, the Federal Government has to protect innocent people from harm. While there may be a better option aside from Guantanamo Bay, I believe that all of us must understand why Guantanamo Bay exists before we can debate its merits or flaws. 


Guantanamo Bay has a purpose – a noble purpose – and that purpose must continue to be the foremost goal of the Federal Government. The end must remain the same; the debate should be over what means will best achieve those ends.

The Resurgence of Terrorism

It is humbling to think that even after the horror of 9/11 and the almost decade-long "War on Terrorism,"  300 innocent people came breathlessly close to being massacred by an Islamic terrorist on American soil on Christmas Day. In other words, the American security institutions are unable to fully protect the American homeland from a terrorist attack.

Of course, we ought to note that American security forces have most likely foiled dozens (if not hundreds) of terrorist plots during the past eight years of the War on Terror. However, what is worrisome about the recent failure of the system is the similarities that the current attack had to the 9/11 attacks.

Before 9/11, all three major intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI and NSA) received many warnings about the men who would eventually hijack and fly the airplanes of the attack. On Aug. 6, 2001, the CIA sounded the alarm by publishing the President's Daily Brief which was entitled, "Bin Laden determined to Strike in U.S." In hindsight, many experts have commented on clear warnings that the intelligence agencies failed to act upon in the months preceding the 9/11 attacks.

The timeline of events that preceded 9/11 is eerily similar to narrative that is emerging of the near-successful attack of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. In March 2009, the British government rejected Abdulmatallab's student visa application and placed him on a terrorist watch list. In August, the NSA received reports of al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen discussing a terrorist attack involving a Nigerian man. On November 19-20, Abdulmutallab's father met with officials of the American embassy in Nigeria, warning them of his son's radical beliefs. A memo would be sent to both the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center with this information, causing both agencies to gather information on Abdulmatallab and identify him in their databases as the potential terrorist. On Dec. 16, and again on Christmas Day, the Department of Homeland Security received notification that a plane ticket had been purchased in cash for Abdulmutallab, and that he had boarded the flight without checking any bags. Despite these warnings, he was permitted to board an airplane to Detroit, and he would eventually come within minutes of murdering 300 innocent people on American soil.

What I find most alarming about the recent attack is that the narrative is so similar to the attack of 9/11. The  failure of the intelligence agencies to act upon the several clear warnings is profoundly similar to the failures of 9/11 – a combination of miscommunication and inefficiency.

You would have thought that in the wake of 9/11 the security institutions would have at least tightened the security in the airline industry. The fact that al Qaeda was able to use the same methods to bypass our security defenses is inexcusable. The security loopholes that were manipulated on 9/11 have yet to be closed – it is absurd.

While Pres. Obama, politicians and many commentators have called for a review into the "systematic failure" of our security system, I would argue that such a review ignores the major issue. While it is important to continually improve our security defense system, and to increase the efficiency of the agencies, the issue is more fundamental. I believe it comes down to the question: should we as a nation overprotect or under-protect?

In the months following 9/11, it was clear that the policy of the Administration was to overreact. The Patriot Act (which was passed almost unanimously by Congress), the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, the creation of the DHS and NCTC, and the billions of dollars spent on security were all instituted in the wake of 9/11. George Bush was a security-first President.

Throughout the Bush Administration, the culture remained that homeland security would be the foremost goal of the President. All this changed with the election of Pres. Obama – health care, closing Gitmo, economic stimulus packages, and other issues took center stage. The American electorate spoke in November 2008, and clearly stated that the ideal of security-first (which arguably personified McCain) was not the ideal that they wanted to uphold.

The following months will be interesting to observe. Terrorism has taken center-stage once again, and one must wonder how the electorate will act. Already, there are calls for Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security) to resign in the wake of her statements that the "system worked". Will the American electorate continue to choose the Democrats over Republicans, despite the fact our security could not stop Abdulmatallab?

I guess we will have to wait until Nov. 2010 to find out.