Reasons for Not Closing Guantanamo - Research Paper Example

? Reasons for Not Closing Guantanamo al Affiliation This document explores the reasons why the Guantanamo bay detention facility has not managed to close. Contrary to the previous Order on shutting down the facility by President Obama, Guantanamo remains open and probably even in the future due social and economical challenges, and lack of support from the government. The congress has been using its power to control the government funds and impose bans on the use of federal finances to support the closure process. As a result, it has restricted resettlement and transfer of detainees to United States territories, and construction of another facility within the United States. This has been made possible through the Defense Authorization Bill and the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriation Act of 2013. Other factors are the threat and insecurity risks upon transfer, resettlement and repatriation programs, and the waste of the investments made in the facility over the period, that have cost the tax payer. Keywords: Congress, Government, Detainees, Guantanamo Facility, Detention, Threats, Closure Introduction There have been numerous efforts to close Guantanamo bay detention facility during Obama’s term as president. Previously, when the president issued the Executive Order for closure of the facility, the engaged Congress opposed him, hence restricting the delivery of his earlier pledge. There are various problems facing Guantanamo bay, and even when shut down, more legal, social, and economical challenges would arise if proper measures are not put in place. Besides the congress, several legislatures especially during 2013 have factored into the logistical problems, by acting to withhold funds meant to aid in closure of Guantanamo detention camp. Congressional Enactments For quite a while, the congress has repetitively voted against the closure of the facility and included provisions that would prevent the use of appropriated funds for any actions aiding in its closure. The detainees in the detention facility have been categorized into 3 groups; those under preventive detention meant to stop them from returning to the battlefield, those under preventive detention and still expected to appear before the military or other tribunal for criminal charges, and those cleared for transfer or release to other foreign nations, after contentment that they pose no security threat or did not engage in any hostilities (Congressional Research Service, 2013). Moving the detainees as last category infers, requires funds to relocate the detainees into other countries. In 2010, after Obama’s Order, the Congress passed a legislation (Defense Authorization Bill), blocking the department of defense from spending any finances in relocation of Guantanamo prisoners from the US for any reason (Landers, 2010). Therefore, any acts of reducing the populating in the facility in line with its closure have failed. On a further opposition, the Congress made it certain that the detainees required to be in the facility and hence restricted the action of building another facility in the mainland United States. Despite the Administration’s clear opposition of section 413, the Congress prohibited the utilization of funds to construct, upgrade or renovate, and expand the US correctional facility in order to house individuals held in the Guantanamo detention facility (Executive Office of the President, 2013). Through the ban, the congress made it clear that not even other US prison facilities would be spared. None would receive financial support to aid in extra housing of the detainees that would be transferred from Guantanamo, which included the expansion activities or operating costs in maintenance of the detainees. Apparently, it is evident that the congress has consistently been using its spending oversight authority to control government funds from acquisition by an Illinois state prison (as a detention facility of one category for Guantanamo detainees), financing trials or even of the transfer of detainees. So far, even after the enactment of the Consolidated Further Continuing Appropriation Act of 2013, the 113th Congress has not changed its probation as indicated in section 8111(CRS, 2013). No actions has occurred that would overrule the congress veto and they hence remain to have an upper hand over the issue of Guantanamo. Threat from Detainees Security for the US citizens and around the world remains the higher priority for the government. The detainees were held in the facility for various issues including terrorism, anti-militia groups, and other criminal charges that pose a threat to the people living in the US. The public and the congress opposing the closure feel that the administration plans placed to handle the detainees upon closure are inferior, and could contribute to a rise in insecurity. The issue is where the current detainees would go. The chances of those repatriated to their home countries or resettled in third countries to be recruited by extremists cannot be nullified. The public may deny them any humane treatment and those disgruntled by the US imprisonment or public treatment, may divert their anger to the US nation or any people associated with the nation. The Guantanamo bay hosts a high number of detainees from Yemen, which is a strong hold of the al Qaeda; the long standing pledge to close the facility would be contingent on resettling them in a third country or repatriating them either directly or indirectly, which raises concern from some US lawmakers that the released detainees would return to the battlefield, or join criminal organizations through the detention and reintegration programs (Masters & Laub, 2013). Therefore, the closure and subsequent processes aiding it demonstrate that the plan used by the proponent would be too risky in future and of potential harm, especially if the detainees get recruited again. The public reactions imply that they are not ready to accommodate the detainees within their neighborhoods. Holding the detainees in the facility would act to give law abiding citizens and population around the world some consideration in their lives. Fiscal consideration The Guantanamo bay has been in existence for quite a long time. It was established in 1898 and was leased to the US government by the government of Cuba. Since 1903, it was used as a detention facility of the Cuba and Haitian refugees until towards the end of the 20th century, when it was turned into a prison camp for those that perpetuated the 9/11 attack, especially those from Afghanistan and Iraq (“Guantanamo bay,” n.d.). In the first place, the US government has spent considerable amounts of money in setting up and maintaining the facility. The option of building up a similar facility within the United States means that all the efforts and expenditure channeled towards maintaining and renovating the facility was a waste. Between 2004 and 2007, two more state of the art detention camps (camp 5 and 6), which are fully functional and which resemble modern federal prison structures were completed (“Gitmo,” 2008). Though the operational costs are still high, there would be no need to build, transfer, and maintaining a new facility and the detainees in US soil if Guantanamo detention camp remains open. The facility is equipped with all the necessary tools to contain detainees within the premises at any cost. In fact, if the detainees were to be held in the United States DOD correctional facilities, more factors dealing with legal and cost operations to ensure the detainees, DOD personnel and the general public maintenance and safety, would have to be considered and well catered for. Millions of US dollars have been spent to renovate and equip the facility so far, which are too much to lose, noting that they come from the taxpayer. For the congress, closing the facility has not been an option. However, the new change coming in is a need to upgrade the facility. The opposing forces towards fulfilling Obama’s pledge reside with the congress, which is not satisfied with the administration’s plan. For sure, they have substantial reasons to stop the closure of the facility. Reference List Congressional Research Service. (2013, May 30). Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center: Legal issues. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40139.pdf CRS. (2013, March 26). Summary H.R 933- 113th Congress. Retrieved from http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/933 Executive Office of the President. (2013, June 3). Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2216–Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014.Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/saphr2216r_20130603.pdf Guantanamo Bay’s Peculiar History. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/220/guantanamo-bay-history.html Gitmo Files and Photos. (2008, April 13)Retrieved from http://cryptome.org/eyeball/gitmo-architect/gitmo-architect.htm Landers, P. (2010, December 23). Congress Bars Gitmo Transfers. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704774604576036520690885858 Masters, J. & Laub, Z. (20s13, August 22). Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Retrieved from http://www.cfr.org/yemen/al-qaeda-arabian-peninsula-aqap/p9369 Read More