Here’s a good article providing 4 reasons in predicting why Obama will fail to close Gitmo. The article was written more than two years ago.
The problem is that there may not be enough hard evidence to convict the prisoners of Gitmo were they brought to trial, especially for those suspected to be higher ups in terrorist organizations. It’s kind of like convicting Al Capone. It is a fundamentally different challenge than convicting the Nazi leaders during the Nuremberg Trials. Al-Qaeda is not a nation state; it is a criminal organization. For example, were we to capture Bin Laden, what is the actual evidence except a bunch of threatening video tapes that would link him to 9/11?
I think about the torture and obvious violations of the Geneva conventions going on at Gitmo…
The question to me is two-fold:
First, suppose none of the world knew about the practices in Gitmo. Would it be just, in that case, to violate the basic human rights of many innocent people in order to detain the few terrorist leaders?
Second, suppose the world knows (as it does now) of the fact that U.S. is torturing these prisoners and detaining them without trial. Is it just, in this case, to violate the basic human rights of many innocent people in order to detain the few terrorist leaders?
What is the difference between those two questions? I can’t escape the thought that every legitimate terrorist we don’t put on trial (and potentially, though unlikely, having to let him go) we are creating hundreds, thousands more potential terrorists… Young kids in the Middle East now growing up (in poverty) with a fundamental hatred for the United States. Should we not be fighting this hatred as opposed to the symptom of it: terrorism. Should we not declare a “war on hatred”, where the weapons are schools, hospitals, etc?