Analysis of Selected Guantanamo Bay Case Studies
Question 1 (CLOs 5-6 and 10-14):
Although multiple factors were involved, President Obamas inability to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility (GITMO) despite signing an executive order to do so on his first day in office can be attributed to a confluence of key factors. For instance, while there was initially bipartisan support for closing GITMO, Congress soon became a major obstacle, raising concerns about the security risks of transferring detainees to the United States and the potential for their release. Indeed, the foundational purpose of GITMO was to provide a secure location outside the borders under complete U.S. control to hold, interrogate, and assess suspected terror suspects without any interference from a host government (p. 401). Moreover, legislation was subsequently passed prohibiting the transfer of detainees to U.S. soil, effectively blocking Obamas plan to relocate them to domestic prisons (Gvosdev, 2009).
Furthermore, finding countries willing to accept the transfer of detainees proved extremely challenging. Many nations were reluctant to take in individuals deemed high-risk or faced domestic political opposition to doing so. This made it difficult to find suitable locations to send the detainees, leaving them essentially stranded at GITMO. Compounding the issue was the continued active involvement of the United States military in Afghanistan and other counterterrorism operations, which led to the capture of new detainees, thereby further complicating efforts to wind down operations at the facility.
The legal status of detainees and the rules governing their detention were also highly complex and contested, with disagreements over whether they should be tried in civilian or military courts and concerns about the admissibility of evidence obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques. These legal hurdles continue to represent significant obstacles to the closure process.
As the efforts to achieve the closure of GITMO dragged on, Obama faced increasing political opposition from Republicans and some Democrats concerned about the security implications of closing...
…the constant need for vigilance and security, it is reasonable to suggest that the extent to which operations at GITMO lack transparency will be the extent to which already close scrutiny by the international community is further intensified. Likewise, fully engaging legal experts and human rights groups will help to ensure strict adherence to ethical and legal standards. In addition, coordinating with DOD and agencies can help secure needed resources and support, but the ongoing provision of comprehensive training for all personnel on
cultural awareness, detainee rights and protocols is essential.
Key risks that were involved in this enterprise included potential security breaches compromising personnel, detainee or community safety. Stringent security measures, robust training and contingency planning mitigates this. Legal challenges or political backlash risks undermining legitimacy, requiring close coordination with legal advisors to remain compliant. Negative public perception and reputational damage to the military and nation is also a risk. Finally, proactive transparency, consistent messaging highlighting Americas human…
