Transferring Some Guantanamo Detainees to the U.S. Will Actually Make America Safer

By launching the bruhaha over transferring some Guantanamo detainees to the U.S., the Republican Right has hit another low on the demagoguery meter. Some Democrats in Congress themselves wilted in the face of the onslaught. Luckily, President Obama did not.

The fact is, of course, that transferring some of the Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. will actually make America safer.

The bloviators on Fox News paint pictures of terrorists running free in the streets once they have been released by hapless courts, or escaped from prison. Of course that's ridiculous.

As President Obama pointed out in his Thursday National Archives security speech, there are hundreds of terrorists, murderers, rapists and other terrifying types that have been tried and convicted by American courts and held safely behind bars. In fact, no one has ever escaped a federal "super max" prison. The Washington Post reported this morning that "thirty-three international terrorists, many with ties to al-Qaeda, reside in a single federal prison in Florence, Colorado, with little public notice."

Obama quoted Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who said the idea that we can't find places to put 350 detainees in the United States is simply not rational.

Neither, by the way, is the focus of some Republicans on the report showing that 14% of the 500-plus detainees that have been released thus far from Guantanamo have engaged in new acts opposing the United States.

First, of course, these people were released by the Bush administration or the Courts -- not Obama. They were released mainly because they shouldn't have been in detention in the first place. Many were the products of bounty hunters who received rewards for turning people in. And that was so even though former Guantanamo Commander, General Geoffrey Miller (later of Abu Ghraib fame) assured Members of Congress that all of the detainees in Guantanamo were "bad guys." That, of course, is why we have due process: to determine if the people that the General Millers of the world think are "bad guys" really are.

Second, you'd expect some of those released to "reoffend." It's not too surprising that some of the folks we held without trial for years might be a bit miffed at the U.S. Unfortunately Guantanamo itself probably created a number of future terrorists who weren't inclined in that direction at all when they were first swept off the streets of Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bosnia. Finally, let's remember that almost two thirds of all those released from U.S. prisons re-offend. That the number from Guantanamo is only 14% is probably a tribute to the fact that most detainees had no business being detainees.

But why take the "chance" by bringing additional Guantanamo detainees to our shores? Because it is critically important to our national security that we close Guantanamo -- and such a step is probably necessary to make that possible.

There is little doubt that the existence of Guantanamo -- coupled with the Bush administration's use of torture and "extraordinary rendition" -- were powerful symbols used to recruit more terrorists than have ever been held in Guantanamo itself.

Guantanamo helped to convince young Muslims that the West does not respect them or their culture -- and that all of our talk about democratic values is just so much hypocrisy.

Fundamentally, the failure of the Bush-Cheney policy was rooted in the fact that they ignored a critical component of human nature: more than anything else people want a sense of meaning and identity -- and their corollary: respect.

You can lock up and kill all of the Muslim "terrorists" you want. But if your approach humiliates, disparages and enrages young Muslims who may never even have thought before about becoming "terrorists" themselves, you will lose the "War on Terror" -- you make Americans less safe.

In 2007, John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed published Who Speaks for Islam?, a book based on Gallup's World Poll -- the largest study of Muslim attitudes ever undertaken. The polling shows that Muslims have a profound sense that their culture, and the religious traditions that in many ways define their sense of personal identity, have been disrespected by Americans and former American leadership. This feeling is particularly pronounced among the segment of respondents the study characterized as "radicalized Muslims" -- those most likely to support or join groups like al-Qaeda.

To many young "radicalizable" Muslims, Guantanamo is one of the most power symbols of that disrespect.

And to our allies and potential allies around the world, Guantanamo is a symbol that America abandoned its democratic values. Its continued existence makes it more difficult for them to work with us to protect our mutual security.

In order to close Guantanamo we have to move the detainees somewhere. We'd like our allies to take a number of those detainees, but that is wholly unlikely if we refuse to move any into the United States ourselves. After all, the U.S. created this problem -- they didn't.

Just as important, a number of the current detainees should be tried by American courts for violation of the law. For that purpose they must be moved to the United States.

This debate played out yesterday as part of dueling speeches by President Obama and former Vice President Cheney.

All that remains of Cheney's "undisclosed location" is his marginality on the American political landscape. In his speech he demonstrated openly the recklessness that so weakened America during his eight-year reign.

Most fundamentally, Obama's speech distinguished America's security policy from the Bush-Cheney years in two critical ways:

1) Obama asserted that our values are our most important national security asset. These values not only include America's commitment to human rights and due process of law, but a commitment to respecting other people and treating them the way we ourselves would want to be treated. Obama understands clearly that nothing will do more to help us win the underlying battle for the hearts and minds of young people across the world than the application of that kind of moral force.

2) Obama utterly discarded the Bush-Cheney doctrine that in matters involving national security there is a "Unitary Executive." This view was most eloquently elaborated by that great philosopher Richard Nixon as, " if the President does it, that makes it legal." In other words, Obama reaffirmed our traditional belief that this is a "nation of laws" and that no one -- not even the president -- is above them.

We are now discovering the many ways that Bush and Cheney used the theory of the "Unitary Executive" to eviscerate our values and disregard the Constitution. It will take some time for President Obama to clean up the mess they created -- including Guantanamo.

In the meantime, Progressives should be thrilled that Cheney has taken it upon himself lead the rearguard Neo-Con battle to defend their failed national security policy. Cheney's personal unpopularity with the voters is a testament to Abraham Lincoln's view that you can't fool all the people, all the time. In fact, from the Progressive point of view it is hard to imagine a better choice for General in Chief of the Conservative forces than Dick Cheney. To paraphrase his former partner: Bring him on.

Robert Creamer is a longtime political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on Amazon.com.

Comments

[fourpatts]

Failed national security policy? Like all the times crazed Muslims attacked U.S. cities after 9/11? If that's failed policy, then let's hope President Obama follows the same course.

[oldgeek1]

Being in fear of those being held in GITMO is nothing more than a scare tactic. The prisons in the country hold truly nasty and evil people, who were formally charged and convicted.

Once again the wacko's are less concerned with the reality of matters just the politics of looking good.

[Jaradan]

A beautiful entry. I would laminate it if I could. Will definitely be passing it around.

[bighat]

The detainess at GITMO are detainees and they do not have access to the outside world. Most of us do not know if these are terrorists or not and if released would they become terrorists. But if they are brought into the US I am sure they will be amused. Every criminal lawyer in the US will do anything to get their name on the front page of the newpaper as well as being the stars of the internet.

We will see everything from the attempt to give them american rights, deportation and just let them go because they were not informed of their rights.

Makes no difference what prison they are put in. The show will be in the courts. No one will try to break them out of prison or on their way into the court room. Leaders of nations that have no love for America will laugh privately and go on the news and be interviewed in order to show their outrage against America.

UN will probably have more speakers than ever from the President of Iran to Hugo Chavez.

What will they laugh privately about. The US paying top dollar to thousands of lawyers that are repensenting these enemy combatants or legal detainees.

The only questions are who will be the next Johnny Cochran and who will be the next dancing Itos

[toughtilly]

So what happens if a detainee or group of detainees manages to escape from Guantanamo? - there must be somebody in Cuba scheming to bring that about. I don't think that is likely, but I don't think escape from a maximum security prison is likely either.

[Berryives]

Obama can surely muster the funds to close Guantanamo without any special Congressional funding. Just think of all the actions that the Bush administration took without any such funding. Obama could and should simply close it forthwith, and disperse the prisoners (perhaps randomly) to various federal prisons. The states have nothing to say about that. Does the federal government have to consult politicians when it transfers federal prisoners? It would be done administratively.

That would be the easy first step. After that has been quickly accomplished, the more difficult second step of processing those prisoners could follow. Obama could have done the first step in his first days in office, and the longer it is delayed, the more ridiculous will become the politicization of the issue.

Let the right-wing idiots who choose to exploit the necessary resolution of this problem say whatever they want to say. Who cares? What they think pales in the face of our national security and international image.

[langej]

Gitmo, The Environment, the Economy
Obama seems to be annoying both Liberal and Conservative on these issues.
That tells me he must be doing something right.

[bighat]

Did not take the President long to get into tha bit of spending money like there is no tomorrow. Must be his training as a senator. Seems to enjoy having the worlds largest bank account. One that is never balanced.

[MacQ]

Eric Holder was asked by a congressman (I think it was Issa) why waterboarding our troops in training is not "torture".
Holder answered (he thought cleverly) that it was done under supervision, without the intent to cause permanent harm.
He couldn't explain how that is different from what the CIA did.

[haimchaim]

I like this intrigue going on - about open or close 'Tanamo May the best man win -- send them back to their homes & villages --Peace

[Blueboy1938]

That's the first time I've heard it referred to as "'Tanamo." I'd always heard "Gitmo."

[ianhannon]

It is a tragic irony that we are calling on Cuba to release Political Prisoners before we move US/Cuba Relations forward, when we are now in fact creating a class of Political Prisoner of our own. By definition a Political Prisoner is someone who is held with or without trial because the State believes that this person is somehow a threat to State Security. I applaud our Presidents attempts to clean up the Bush-Cheney mess that is Gitmo. But I have to agree with John Turley on Countdown last night, that we cannot just hold people indefinitly just in case they will be found not guilty at trial and released. This article clearly points out that in our "normal" justice system, prisoners are released after serving their time who will reoffend. Well done on such a clear article.
Ian

[LettersWSJwillnotPrint]

This is not so much a reply as it is a request. Since September of 2006 I have been writing to the Wall Street Journal taking their opinion page to task. Not one letter has been published. I would feel so much better if someone had a chance to read a portion of my latest response to their opinion piece about Gitmo yesterday.

It takes an abundance of gall to suggest Gitmo has been vindicated. Here are a few of the facts you intentionally got wrong. Just because no one wants terrorist locked up in their back yard does justify Gitmo. And maybe most idiotic of all is suggesting Gitmo has kept us safer. Why, because only those we've detained are the ones who will attack again? Because other terrorist with bombs strapped to their bodies are worried about their remains being locked up without a trial? Because those who flew into the World Trade Center were afraid of being caught after the crime? Gitmo is not about "them." It is about our moral character. The opinion page sarcastically asked, "Tell us again why Gitmo should be closed?" The answer is something you missed in high school English. As the author of "Lord of the Flies," William Golding, said so well, "Evil is not solely the byproduct of tyranny, oppression and totalitarianism, but the inner beast of all humankind.­" The opinion you represent is no better than the inner beast in those you want to detain.

[MacQ]

Maybe we should just release the Gitmo prisoners in Cuba..,

[Scent]

I believe You got it dead wrong.

What You are suggesting is that detaining anyone without proof or trail or ANY human rights is ok. - Just so long as he or she isn´t tortured.

To move ten steps into unlawfully "collevcting" suspects and doing what ever You fing please with them and then taking one step back because it is that one step that should make everything ok again is EXACTLY what Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz and all the others want. Because that means You talk about that one step and by default make the other normal or even ok.

THEY ARE NOT!

As long as there is evidence against these guys, it has to be produced in court and a judge should decide if it was viable or not. And if not, these people HAVE to go free and get whatever they deserve as compensation for their illegal confinement and treatment. There is no other way to again make America at least SEEM to be a country where the law has any meaning at all.

[kenp48]

ABSOLUTELY SCENT!, I suggest we send 10-15 lawyers and a CSI team out with each platoon daily. We must, during battle ask the enemy to stop firing every say, 1/2 hour, so we can then send out CSI to collect spent cartridges and other evidence to be used in their trial . Then anyone captured must be read their Miranda rights, and given a lawyer. We then ship them to the good ole U.S., Cuz after trying to kill Americans they're tired and could use some relaxation time and a good meal. Let's start hiring thousands of judges now, it took 5 years to end the Moussaoui trial, so with the thousands we will capture on the battle field we'll need these Judges so the poor terrorists get speedy justice.YE­S, this is the way to go, let's turn a war into a criminal act,NOW!

[Scent]

Enemy? - You mean people in the way of Halliburton´s Billions, right?

So if what YOU imply is true, all I have to do is point a finger at You, call You enemy and then proceed to torture and kill You.

Can I please have that in writing?

Oh, but I forgot. America is good and all the others are bad. - Simple ideals for simple people, right?

So why exactly is it that You do not just nuke everything on the planet? - If proof isn´t needed to kill and torture, why bother to ask? - Or is it that America can not live without Africans dying producing pineapples cheap enough for Wal Mart? - Korean kids working 16 hours a day to produce cheap cd-players?

But to what You said: No one ever suggested that the proof has to be produced in the field. But if they can´t come up with enough to present to a court in five years of torture - well, to ME that sayst here is non. But not to You of course. You want them bad guys tortured and You don´t want to be bothered with such flimsy details like human rights or proof.

[damilitantone]

If Lincoln can let a bunch of traitors (who actually were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers during the Civil War) keep their rifles and send them back home with only a promise of supporting the Union then I'm sure that the country can survive a bunch of "detainees" who have been lock up for seven years with no contact from the outside. By the way how do you still call someone a "detainee" after they have been locked up for many years? Sounds like prisoners to me.

[rocketman69]

So, it's the 'radicalizable' muslims sense of loss for our democratic values that make them kill? I didn't realize how much they cared for our democracy.

[American50]

The fact is, of course, that transferring some of the Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. will actually make America safer.

God I love a great laugh!!!!!!

[A4D2N]

Make America safer? Nice theory but what do you do with the next batch of terrorists without a Gitmo? Each new one captured on the battlefield will have to go through our court system. It is already clogged with drug cases, scandal, lawsuits, and who knows what.

I do not see why it is critcally important for our national security to close Gitmo. We are not going to win the hearts and minds of a youth that's been taught to hate the West. That teaching is coming from Muslims themselves ... remember the U.S. even before any War on Terror has been characterized as Satan. Like someone said before, whether it makes any difference to the youth of Islam, show a beheading or victims of terrorist bombings to them and then explain why Gitmo exists.

[bighat]

The politicallly correct will cricufy you. Do you not realize the most important thing is how other nation's citizens view the US. Or at least the enlightened actors and models. Do you not realize that some our most influential moved to England just so they would not have to discuss business and politics but just discuss the all important world of art

[DeadPossum]

Without a Gitmo, you would have to try them. How many have been tried from Gitmo out of hundreds detained? Two or three isn't it? Hardly likely to clog up the system. The only case I am familiar with is the trial of an Australian, David Hicks. He trained with some bad people and was foolish enough to have some pics taken holding a big gun. Did he ever harm anyone? Actually no. Not even the prosecution at the military tribunal suggested he did. And he was brought to trial because that was a 'strong' case! The other cases must really suck.
'Special rendition', Abu Graib and Gitmo exist precisely because there IS NOT enough evidence to arrest or bring to trial not because of a surfiet of evidence. Most of these poor shmucks were at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Your last sentance could be turned entirely around. Let them show you pictures of dead relatives killed by American drones, or bombs or shells, and pictures of Abu Graib and Gitmo, and they will then carefully explain why beheadings and bombing exist.

[kingmiller]

Our max security population is kick ass. Second only to Russia. I'll take my chances jack*ss! These towel heads won't make it a week.