WHY WOULD ANY AMERICAN SERIOUSLY OPPOSE CLOSING THE GUANTANAMO BAY PRISON?

Guantanamo Bay Detention Center at sunset.

Guantanamo needs to be closed ASAP, no matter what issues have to be dealt with going forward.

In his first official week, President Barack Obama began overhauling the U.S. national security policy with orders to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center within one year, to review military trials of terror suspects and to end harsh detainee interrogations.

Together, the three executive orders and presidential directive will reshape how the United States prosecutes and questions al Qaeda, Taliban or other foreign fighters who pose a threat to Americans.

Where I have a question is why was it in a recent ABC/Washington Post Poll , that it was found that while large majorities of Americans said Obama should remove U.S. troops from Iraq (70%) and make big changes to the health care system (77%), 40% of respondents also said Obama should close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, while 44% said he shouldn't close it…?

The poll was of 1,003 adults and was taken in mid-December and has a margin of error of 3%.

Why would anyone NOT want to close Guantanamo Prison…?

One person asked about the potential closing said; "Obama can release all these fellows and close the prison, I won't argue against it. But, if even one of those prisoners is latter connected to or detained for further terrorist activities, it will then be Obama's head on a platter. And the media storm that would ensue if a terrorist got away is unimaginable."

And House Republican leader John Boehner said this week. He said he's open to options, "But most local communities around America don't want dangerous terrorists imported into their neighborhoods, and I can't blame them."

"The key question is where do you put these terrorists," Boehner said. "Do you bring them inside our borders? Do you release them back into the battlefield? If there is a better solution, we're open to hearing it."

What the Republican leader fails to at least admit is, that if there really are detainees that cannot be brought to trial because there isn´t enough evidence, my question is; "Why were they detained by the Bush administration in the first place?" That has been Bush´s problem over the past few years, so apparently he just decided to wait it out and give the problem to the new incoming president.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has long contended the U.S. can handle relocating the detainees "just as it has handled the worst criminals and other terrorists before," his spokesman David Carle said.

At least three military prisons, at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., Camp Pendleton, Calif., and Charleston, S.C., could house some of the Guantanamo detainees. Also under consideration, the official said, is the Supermax prison in Florence, Colo., which houses convicted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph.

An estimated 245 men are currently being held at Guantanamo. Most have been detained for years without being charged with a crime. The administration already has received permission to suspend the trials at Guantanamo for 120 days pending a review of the military tribunals.

But the problem isn´t about those that "can" be brought to trial. What about those that haven´t even been charged and there isn´t enough evidence to bring them to trial, and those that no other country will take them?

Between 60 and 120 Guantanamo prisoners may be considered low-threat detainees and transferred to other countries, either for rehabilitation or release. However, only Portugal has so far agreed to take some of those detainees, although diplomatic discussions are ongoing. A State Department spokesman could not say which nations had been asked so far to accept prisoners.

It's also unclear how the detainees would be prosecuted. Obama's advisers are looking at whether the terror suspects should be tried in federal courts under long-standing military or civilian criminal law. It's possible the administration could call for a new "national security court system", a hybrid of the two, although officials described that as "a last resort."

John D. Altenburg Jr., the retired Army general who oversaw the military commissions until November 2006, says Guantanamo should stay open and the tribunals should continue. Trying detainees in federal courts is problematic, he says, because the evidence was collected "on a battlefield" and may be inadmissible outside the commissions, although "it doesn't mean the evidence is tainted."

But public interest and human rights groups that have long wanted the facility shuttered and were quick to urge Obama to be more aggressive than the draft order's proposals. "It only took days to put these men in Guantanamo," said Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "It shouldn't take a year to get them out."

An executive order is in process to create a task force that would have 30 days to recommend policies on handling terror suspects who are detained in the future. Specifically, the group would look at where those detainees should be housed since Guantanamo is closing. Where the detainees would be housed if not at Guantanamo will become a point of contention for Obama as he grapples with the already thorny legal issue.

Dozens of protesters gathered at the U.S. Supreme Court building on January 11 to mark the sixth anniversary of the operation of the Guantánamo Bay facility. Eighty-one people were arrested as they called for the camp to be permanently closed. Demonstrators wore orange jumpsuits, and some were hooded, simulating the abusive treatment that detainees at the camp have been forced to endure.

The protest, called by Witness Against Torture, called for a repeal of the Military Commissions Act and the restoration of Habeas Corpus, which would give prisoners the right to be brought before a judge. The activists also demanded that the government either charge and try all the detainees, or release them. They further called for the government to "clearly and unequivocally forbid torture and all other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, by the military, the CIA, prison guards, civilian contractors or anyone else."

Protesters chanted "Shut it down," as they kneeled on the plaza in front of the court. The demonstration briefly succeeded in closing down the court building. Protesters faced charges stemming from violating an ordinance that prohibits demonstrations of any kind on court grounds. Some were also charged under a provision that makes it a crime to give "a harangue or oration" in the Supreme Court. Some face up to 120 days in jail.

The protest was part of a day of action that included other demonstrations in London, Stockholm, Ireland, Bahrain, the Philippines and elsewhere around the globe calling for an end to torture and the closure of the prison camp. (Just more proof of what a negative American symbol Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have become around the world.)

One of the protestors made the following comment about not closing Guantanamo; "So they're against closing it because the detainees that have not been charged might bear a grudge and come after Americans? Sooo, we should just leave them there to rot until they die? Oh yeah, that'll do great for America´s world reputation for due process and fairness."

Whatever happens, it´s now on Obama´s desk and hopefully he will be able to get this black mark removed or at least get it out of America´s legacy for the future.

Once again, "Good Luck President Obama."

Copyright G.Ater 2009