The Decision Process Behind Closing Guantanamo Bay
Decision-making is an everyday part of our government system that allows officials to decide what is best for our nation. Luckily in the U.S. people are able to make choices based on their own personal beliefs and are allowed to express their opinions. Decision-making is part of the key to success in a democracy; by analyzing different points of view our leaders are able to choose between numerous options of what will best benefit the nation. One major event involving U.S. International Relations is the recent closing of Guantanamo Bay.
Guantanamo Bay is a detainment and interrogation camp that was established to hold detainees from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. During Barack Obama’s political campaign in 2008 he claimed that Guantanamo Bay was a “sad chapter in American history” and promised to close the facility in 2009. On January 22nd, 2009 President Obama made the decision to close Guantanamo Bay by officially signing an order to close the facility within the next year. Obama’s year long deadline didn’t make the cut when officials soon found out that many of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay did not have comprehensive files on hand so gathering evidence on these detainees could take a few months. In May of 2009 Obama stated that his plan would be revived and would now be closed in 2010 but he never gave a specific deadline. Discussions about where prisoners would be moved to became unsuccessful because no specific center wanted to take the responsibility of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners causing a dispute about where they should be transferred to.
In May of 2010 a released report recommended discharging 126 current detainees to their homes or to a third country, 36 be prosecuted in either federal court or a military commission, and 48 to be held indefinitely under the laws of war. In January of 2011 President Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill that contained provisions preventing the transfer of Guantánamo prisoners to the mainland or to other foreign countries which ended up temporarily stopping the plan to close the facility. In March of 2011 President Obama gave the order to continue with military trials of detainees conducted by military officers. Recently, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said “the Obama administration is doing everything it can to shut down the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before the 2012 presidential elections.” Others agree too that Guantanamo Bay should become closed sometime soon in the near future, but not to rush the process until a definite place is found to keep the remaining detainees. As Senator John McCain stated, Guantanamo is "not going to close. ... I favor closing, but I also favor before announcing its closure finding a place where they could be kept." Currently the situation in Guantanamo Bay has been basically put on hold.
As we saw in class this past week there are many different types of decision-making; in the case of Guantanamo Bay the theory of a rational actor best describes how out government made the decision to close Guantanamo Bay and why they are still following through with this decision despite their many complications. The theory of a rational actor states that under every decision there is a reason, it was intended because there was a purpose and a self-want behind this decision. In the case of Guantanamo Bay, President Obama said he was issuing the order to close the facility in order to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism." In the case of a rational actor it is important to consider in how other states are trying to act as well, the U.S. must consider actions of other nations. The U.S. must also try to maximize it’s costs and benefits in specific situations, by comparing strategic and intended goals we are able to choose strategies that give us the most of what we want for the lowest costs. We must treat the government as a whole as if it were a person and then take action. When looking at the decision that Obama made to close Guantanamo Bay one can see that he did take into consideration the different ideas expressed through the theory of rational actors."We believe that the Army field manual reflects the best judgment of our military, that we can abide by a rule that says we don't torture, but that we can still effectively obtain the intelligence that we need," Obama said. "This is me following through ... on an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct not just when it's easy but also when it's hard."
In order to further analyze the situation in Guantanamo Bay we must wait to see what will happen next? Will the U.S. be able to find acceptable areas to place the remaining detainees? How much longer will their trials continue? What will be Obama’s next move to try and speed the process of closing Guantanamo Bay? What will happen after Guantanamo Bay is officially closed? All of these questions can be answered soon by following the decisions that are made by our President regarding Guantanamo Bay.
Works Cited
Cassata, Donna. "The Associated Press: Obama, Congress Divided over Terror Suspects." Google. Web. 16 Oct. 2011.
"Closure Of Guantanamo Detention Facilities." The White House. Web. 16 Oct. 2011.
"Eric Holder: We Aim to Close Gitmo before Election Day - MJ Lee - POLITICO.com." Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com. Web. 16 Oct. 2011.
"Obama Signs Order to Close Guantanamo Bay Facility - CNN." Featured Articles from CNN. 22 Jan. 2009. Web. 16 Oct. 2011.
Rachael I'm curious of your thoughts on the quote you gave of Obama giving his reasoning for this. I think it was about restoring values our country once had in regard to the Constitution, etc. Many people would argue that these people are war criminals and don't deserve the rights that US citizens enjoy under the law (our law).
ReplyDeleteI think the reasoning for what Obama is claiming interestingly relates to certain things in IR and I'm curious about what your thoughts are.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEven though the reasoning behind Bush's opening Guantanamo Bay was built of good intention (to safeguard the US), it is a controversial issue whether or not the institution was Constitutional. I agree Rachel and Ryan questioning if the true reason behind the closing the camp was that it didn't embody true American ideals. During the prime of this camp, did America's idea of torture clash with the rest of the civilized world, seeing that the US used interrogation tactics which are generally looked down upon in warfare? It seems as though the "war on terror" was actually being combatted using acts of terrorism at Guantanamo Bay, though such things as shaking and sleep deprivation. It is a difficult decision to be sure about closing the camp. In some respects, it might be good to hold very dangerous persons in seclusion is such a place, but are violating Constitutional ideals at Guantanamo in the name of security worth the "risk" of the so-called protection of the US?
ReplyDeleteSource: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/guantanamobaynavalbasecuba/index.html
I agree that the U.S. intended to close Guantanamo Bay due to our views stated in the Constitution but for other reasons also. I find it interesting how this website describes the different reasons why Guantanamo Bay should be closed now. http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3024/
ReplyDeleteIt really puts into prospective how we thought at first Guantanamo Bay would be the solution to helping our security but in reality it might be causing other problems.
In class we talked about decision making done at the national level and the international level. In your briefing you mentioned that "In May of 2010 a released report recommended discharging 126 current detainees to their homes or to a third country..."
ReplyDeleteI am just wondering how these third country parties feel about receiving prisoners from Guantanamo Bay and if negotiations also have to be done at that level as well. I cant imagine that most third countries would want to be accepting terrorist prisoners and other criminals willingly, so what is their incentive.
Nice topic Rachael and one that raises a lot of questions on American identity and rule following.
ReplyDeleteAs far as identity, America, I feel tries to showcase itself as the world's watch dog and liberator that takes care of the "bad guy" but what happens when we don't follow our own rules or rules of the world like the Geneva Convention? I followed your link to the reasons why Guantanamo should be closed, fascinating. The US is claiming GB is an "intermediate camp" between civilian and prisoner of war... this doesn't exist. How can the US break this simple rule? Will their be prosecution for this?
I believe the GB issue is huge with many twists and turns and rules being broken as evidence by the link and reports of torture. I think another valid angle to take is, what happens after it closes? Like Ryan said, how do these third party countries feel about receiving these criminals and on what grounds are the others being able to return home. There is a large gap of misinformation or missing information in the decision to open and finally close.
When the idea of closing Guantanamo Bay was first proposed the U.S. did not want anything to do with the prisoners, they did not want them on our soil but yet wanted other nations to take charge of them which I find really interesting. This article from Washington Post shows the U.S. views back in 2009.
ReplyDelete"If the U.S. refuses to take these people, why should we?" said Thomas Silberhorn, a member of the German Parliament from Bavaria, where the White House wants to relocate nine Chinese Uighur prisoners. "If all 50 states in America say, 'Sorry, we can't take them,' this is not very convincing."
We've had GB for quite some while so many are left wondering what does the U.S. do now when they find terrorist suspects?
Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan said, "that if a suspected terrorist operative were captured and a civilian criminal prosecution were not feasible, it is possible that person could be placed in military custody and brought to the United States for trial by a military commission."http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62990.html#ixzz1bRIv5eo9
There are still many different views of what to do with handling possible terrorists in the future and there is no set solution yet given by any country. This article really shows our uncertainty. As of right now the focus of Guantanamo Bay is to simply get the remaining detainees out; there is not a large set focus of what to do in the future.