Obama, Congress Bring Guantanamo Bay Prison Closer to Closed

Startling revelations have built momentum for closing the controversial detention facility — including among defense hawks.

The entrance to Camp Justice at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
National Journal
Stacy Kaper
See more stories about...
Stacy Kaper
Dec. 23, 2013, midnight

The tide is turn­ing in fa­vor of Pres­id­ent Obama’s long-suf­fer­ing bid to shut down Guantanamo Bay.

Obama is­sued an ex­ec­ut­ive or­der to close the Cuba-based de­ten­tion fa­cil­ity on the open­ing days of his pres­id­ency. Five years later, it re­mains open, a sharp re­mind­er of the chasm between the ideal­ism of cam­paign­ing and the harsh real­ity of gov­ern­ing.

But after years of set­backs, the pres­id­ent is mak­ing pro­gress to­ward clos­ing the base — and Con­gress is help­ing.

The ad­min­is­tra­tion is us­ing the lim­ited ex­ec­ut­ive au­thor­ity it has to move pris­on­ers out. And fol­low­ing two and a half years in which the ad­min­is­tra­tion trans­ferred no de­tain­ees, the last few months have seen a series of ag­gress­ive moves to trans­fer pris­on­ers else­where, dwind­ling Gitmo’s pop­u­la­tion to 158 as of Dec. 20.

More im­port­ant, per­haps, is a pro­vi­sion tucked in­to the latest Na­tion­al De­fense Au­thor­iz­a­tion Act that lifts trans­fer re­stric­tions on de­tain­ees who have been cleared to leave and were nev­er charged for a crime. The new rules al­low them to re­turn to their home coun­tries or to cer­tain oth­er na­tions will­ing to re­ceive them.

The ease in policy clears a path for 79 de­tain­ees — half of the fa­cil­ity’s re­main­ing pop­u­la­tion — to leave un­der mon­it­or­ing or oth­er ar­range­ments with their new host coun­try. And many among the oth­er half of the re­main­ing pop­u­la­tion are un­der re­view, which could lead to ad­di­tion­al trans­fers.

So what breathed new life in­to pre­vi­ously flounder­ing ef­forts to close the fa­cil­ity? In short: Dol­lars and cents.

At the be­hest of law­makers, the Pentagon re­leased new data this sum­mer on the costs of Guantanamo Bay — and the totals far ex­ceeded pre­vi­ous es­tim­ates. The U.S. has spent $5 bil­lion on Guantanamo Bay since it star­ted ac­cept­ing pris­on­ers in 2002. Right now, the fa­cil­ity costs the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment an av­er­age of $2.7 mil­lion per pris­on­er per year

In a se­questered spend­ing en­vir­on­ment, that price tag is a red flag for those look­ing to con­serve re­sources for de­fense pro­grams deemed more vi­tal.

Those cost con­cerns are chan­ging the battle lines of the dec­ade-old ar­gu­ment over the fa­cil­ity. Pre­vi­ously, clos­ing Guantanamo was seen as an ar­gu­ment between de­fense hawks and civil liber­tari­ans. Obama and his al­lies ar­gued that the base — where neither the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion nor Cuban law ap­plies — falls short of the stand­ards of Amer­ic­an so­ci­ety.

Those ar­gu­ments car­ried only lim­ited cur­rency in Con­gress, par­tic­u­larly among de­fense hawks. But now that pro­ponents of clos­ing Gitmo can point both to ideo­lo­gic­al con­cerns and ar­gu­ments that it’s tak­ing up funds that would be bet­ter spent else­where, many in Con­gress think the fa­cil­ity’s days are numbered.

“The change in policy is sig­ni­fic­ant,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Cal­if. “What it re­flects is that we are past the high-wa­ter mark of sup­port for Guantanamo and that sup­port in Con­gress is on the de­cline.”¦ It’s in­dic­at­ive of mo­mentum to close the pris­on, but it is also an in­dic­a­tion of how far we have yet to go.”

Guantanamo spends about 80 times as much per pris­on­er as does a max­im­um-se­cur­ity fed­er­al pris­on, said Chris An­ders, a seni­or le­gis­lat­ive coun­sel with the Amer­ic­an Civil Liber­ties Uni­on.

“You have these num­bers that are just are ab­surdly high and they had been hid­den by the De­fense De­part­ment for years,” An­ders said. “In lots of ad­min­is­tra­tion De­fense de­part­ment vis­its to Sen­ate of­fices and floor speeches, those cost num­bers were really high­lighted, and I think for a lot of mem­bers of Con­gress who might not be as moved by the con­sti­tu­tion­al and hu­man-rights is­sue at Guantanamo Bay, they are moved by the costs.”

The ex­penses are es­pe­cially sig­ni­fic­ant ex­pense con­sid­er­ing that 79 pris­on­ers were cleared to leave four years ago.

And the costs of Gitmo’s mil­it­ary com­mis­sions are far more in­flated. They have res­ul­ted in sev­en con­vic­tions — two of which have been re­versed — res­ult­ing in an ex­pense of about $120 mil­lion per con­vic­tion, ac­cord­ing to An­ders.

To put that in­to per­spect­ive, An­ders said, that’s about 6,0000 times high­er than the $18,000 av­er­age cost of a con­vic­tion in fed­er­al crim­in­al courts in the U.S.

But des­pite re­cent signs of pro­gress, achiev­ing Obama’s long-term goal of clos­ing the base still faces ma­jor hurdles.

Un­der a com­prom­ise ne­go­ti­ated between House and Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices com­mit­tee lead­ers in the Na­tion­al De­fense Au­thor­iz­a­tion Act, Gitmo de­tain­ees re­main banned from trans­fer to the United States to face tri­als or serve de­ten­tion for an­oth­er year. The le­gis­la­tion also bans the De­fense De­part­ment from un­leash­ing any funds to build or ret­ro­fit fa­cil­it­ies in the U.S. to hold Gitmo de­tain­ees through the end of 2014.

Some 31 de­tain­ees have been slated for tri­als or mil­it­ary com­mis­sions, but crim­in­al tri­als could not take place un­less the trans­fer ban to the U.S. is lif­ted and mil­it­ary com­mis­sions could take years.

Only one Gitmo pris­on­er is serving time in the U.S.

“The work that still re­mains in or­der to ac­tu­ally close the fa­cil­ity will re­quire that Con­gress lift the ban to bring­ing some of the de­tain­ees to the U.S. for tri­al,” said Melina Mil­azzo, a seni­or policy coun­sel with the Cen­ter for Vic­tims of Tor­ture. “That’s go­ing to be a hurdle that the next Con­gress or fu­ture Con­gresses are go­ing to have to deal with.”

The Re­pub­lic­an-con­trolled House voted to main­tain the status quo of in­def­in­ite de­ten­tions in June be­fore hav­ing to com­prom­ise with the Demo­crat­ic-con­trolled Sen­ate on a fi­nal bill in Decem­ber.

Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans in Novem­ber failed to find 60 votes to block Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Chair­man Carl Lev­in’s plan to ease trans­fer re­stric­tions. But many Re­pub­lic­ans re­main con­vinced that al­low­ing trans­fers out of Guantanamo Bay, par­tic­u­larly to the U.S., puts na­tion­al se­cur­ity at risk.

“While call­ing for the clos­ure of Guantanamo Bay makes a great cam­paign talk­ing point, do­ing so will un­der­mine good in­tel­li­gence col­lec­tion and in­crease the risk that the dan­ger­ous de­tain­ees who are held there will be back on the streets plot­ting to kill Amer­ic­ans,” said Sen. Saxby Cham­b­liss, R-Ga., in Novem­ber. “Yet, for over four years, the pres­id­ent has stub­bornly failed to of­fer any vi­able, long-term de­ten­tion and in­ter­rog­a­tion policy for cur­rent and fu­ture Guantanamo de­tain­ees so that we can col­lect in­tel­li­gence and keep ter­ror­ists from re­turn­ing to the fight.”.

The polit­ic­al obstacles to clos­ing the Guantanamo Bay de­ten­tion cen­ter are not in­sig­ni­fic­ant.

“Obama chose not to spend the polit­ic­al cap­it­al he needed to get it done in the first two years when Demo­crats con­trolled the House and Sen­ate,” said Cully Stim­son, a seni­or fel­low in na­tion­al se­cur­ity with the Her­it­age Found­a­tion.

He poin­ted out that next year is an elec­tion year and if Re­pub­lic­ans take con­trol of the Sen­ate, ad­di­tion­al policy changes to­ward clos­ing Gitmo — such as al­low­ing trans­fers to the U.S. — will be hard to pass.

“The long pole in the tent is what ad­di­tion­al rights, if any, would de­tain­ees get if they came to the U.S.?” Stim­son said. “I do not see any vi­able pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate ad­opt­ing the plat­form of trans­port­ing ter­ror­ists from Guantanamo Bay in­to the United States.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
12 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
13 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×