Jamie
Weinstein
Read Jamie's bio and previous columns
March 3, 2009
Guantanamo Bay:
Why In the World Are We Shutting This Place Down?
True to his campaign
pledge, President Obama signed an executive order soon after being sworn
in that demanded the Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) prison facilities housing
War on Terror detainees to be shut down within a year. As expected, his
many supporters in government around the country immediately provided
help to their new president in achieving this shared goal.
Ardent Obama champion Democratic Kansas Governor (and how Health and
Human Services Secretary-designate) Kathleen Sibelius, for instance,
stated in January that she stood behind her president and his goal to
close the prison facility. “We’ve got to
discontinue the use of Guantanamo Bay,” she said. “I gotta tell you, I
think it gives the world a real question about how America values our
democratic principles. It seems to violate everything our Founding
Fathers said in the first place.”
Let’s
agree to disagree. But on the broader point, Gov. Sebelius, will you
help your president by housing some of the prisoners in Kansas? No way,
Jose.
“I don’t
have to want them in Kansas,” Sebelius said. “Closing Guantanamo Bay
doesn’t mean the prisoners come to the heartland of America. I think we
need to find the appropriate place to house those detainees.”
Yes,
wheresoever could we find an “appropriate” place to house the detainees?
Nothing sounds more appropriate to me than Gitmo, but if Gitmo is out of
the question and Kansas is apparently an inappropriate place, what about
America’s most historic prison: Alcatraz?
As luck
would have it, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s district is the site
of the famed nearly impenetrable penitentiary. Certainly she would help
her newly inaugurated president achieve their shared goal of shutting
down Gitmo, right?
Well, you
see it’s complicated. While Speaker Pelosi thinks closing down Gitmo is
a “brilliant” idea, she doesn’t think Alcatraz is the right place.
"Alcatraz is a
tourist attraction,” the Speaker said on one of the Sunday talk shows in
January shooting down the Alcatraz proposal. “It's a prison that is now
sort of like a – it's a national park."
Oh, I
see. It’s a national park.
Liberals
agree on closing down Gitmo. They just don’t want to house the
terrorists in their back yard. But is Gitmo really all that bad of a
place to keep War on Terror prisoners?
Last
week, Obama’s Defense Department completed a review of the Gitmo
detention facilities in compliance with the president’s January
Executive Order. The report concluded that
“the conditions of
confinement in Guantanamo are in conformity with common Article 3 of the
Geneva Conventions.” More than that, the report states, “the chain of
command responsible for the detention mission at Guantanamo consistently
seeks to go beyond a minimalist approach to compliance with Common
Article 3, and endeavors to enhance conditions in a manner as humane as
possible consistent with security concerns.”
Little gems are
sprinkled throughout the report that makes Gitmo look like, as Get
Shorty’s Chili Palmer might have put it, the Cadillac of prisons.
Detainees, for
instance, are given “three hot halal meals per day – with 4,500-5,000
cal/day” and they have “six menus for detainees to choose from –
specifically: regular, high fiber, vegetarian, vegetarian with fish,
bland, and soft food.” Is this the Ritz Carlton or a prison facility?
“A typical meal
includes,” the report continues, “meat, starch (plus bread), vegetable,
dessert, fruit, fruit juice or similar drink.” If ordinary Cubans knew
how well the Gitmo detainees were eating, they would be clamoring for
admittance.
The report even
documented how “recently, an additional pillow was issued to detainees
at the camp” because “some of the detainees did not prefer the pillow
built into the foam mattress.” Detainees are provided a Koran in “the
language of their choice,” prayer beads, a cap, a rug and a prayer
schedule. Some detainees are given $100 a month to buy snacks.
Cooperative detainees (the ones not throwing their feces at the
soldiers) can play in a recreation yard that has soccer, basketball,
volleyball, table tennis and foosball facilities. Yes, you heard that
right. Foosball.
The report does,
however, document some recent horrors that occurred. During two
inspections, the report reads, “a small number of meals delivered to
detainees in Camps 5 and Echo . . . were approximately five degrees
under the optimal standard.” For shame.
Look, no one wants
detainees who are no threat to America to remain in Gitmo one day longer
than they need to be. Many detainees have already been released.
Unfortunately, many of those who have been released have returned to the
battlefield to fight America and its interest. One former Gitmo
detainee, as the New York Times reported, became a leader of
Al-Qaeda’s Yemen branch. This should remind us that America is still at
war and that the prisoners in Gitmo are not mostly boy scouts. Despite
left-wing activists’ desire to paint Gitmo as an international symbol of
depravity, it is far from it.
All of
this leads to the obvious conclusion that the best and safest place to
house the Gitmo detainees is at Gitmo. Mr. President, why in the world
are we shutting this place down?
© 2009
North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This is column #
JW059.
Request permission to publish here. |