To quote Sean Hannity, "In foreign policy poker, the United States plays with its cards face up." This has become a melancholy truth in light of the endless supply of intelligence leaks that spur debates about civil liberties instead of the national security that provides civil liberties. A balance between the two has to be struck, but those who are quick to criticize NSA wiretapping, the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay need to be equally quick in realizing that democracies are already at a disadvantage of fighting terror. Constitutionally liberal democracies allow for dissent and debate, which can turn decisive action into a mixed message debate. The result, which is dangerously potent regarding Guantanamo Bay, stacks the deck against us as well as showing our cards to the enemy.
The recent call by the UN Commission on Human Rights to shut down GITMO should not be getting the prestige those who disapprove of GITMO give it. It's rather difficult to fathom how a statement from a human rights body that includes Sudan, China and Cuba can be taken seriously. Further, law firms such as Manhattan's Center for Constitutional Rights which are providing legal assistance to GITMO detainees are equally a joke. The way they speak about the detainees, being in "captivity" in a "prison camp" without "social justice" are meant to evoke notions of Nazism, and those dreaded internment camps started by the left's favorite president. Naturally, such notions are as crazy as those that take statements about human rights from China seriously.
The detainee's in GITMO aren't the wandering Afghani peasant's helpless captured by the great Satan some have made them out to be. Pentagon press officer Commander Flex Plexico has stated the true intention of GITMO: "To prevent detainee's from continuing to fight against the United States in the war on terror as well as to gather intelligence to thwart further terrorist assaults." We as a nation have a responsibility that our national security is secured. Because GITMO detainees are not "domestic criminal suspects" as pointed out by several members of the military, they are not entitled to the "innocent until proven guilty" status of domestic offenders. And given that 25 of the released GITMO detainee's have taken up arms against the U.S. yet again, it makes me less interested in giving them such a status.
Much of the criticism of GITMO is purely political as well. More than 100 members of Congress have visited GITMO since its inception yet only when the media light is shone on Guantanamo do politicians jump on the criticism train. If one wants to regulate anything about GITMO, let it be the language used by one United States Senator who referred to GITMO as being reminiscent of "concentration camps and Pol Pot's regime." That kind of talk hurts our ability to effectively wage the War on Terror by giving the terrorists a leg up in the media war that has proven it to be a central front in this battle. It also doesn't account for the access GITMO detainees have to prayer, the Koran and the pure insult that it is to associate our troops to regime's that intentionally murdered millions. Like anything else, this language is used to be on the political offense. Hence the report for the United Nations, which is looking for an easy target to shift the limelight on to after being, mirrored in corruption and human rights scandals of their own.
In spite of the politicians, what matters most in the GITMO controversy is the law and the law has thus far been on GITMO's side. In no way is the existence of GITMO a violation of U.S. treaties and U.S. law. The use of military tribunals to ensure those who are at GITMO has proven effective; over 200 detainees have been released. Further, the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that these military commissions were constitutional, and those that remain in GITMO deserve to be there.
In knowing the facts, we can cut the rhetoric. We as a nation have to look out for our security, especially in a world that has playing the same game as the enemy with a different and much harder set of rules. We can't count on the United Nations to make serious statements on human rights when they refuse to focus on real human rights atrocities. Nor can we count on American lawyers to support our way of life in spite of the life they have received from it. We have to trust ourselves and trust our ability to protect our national security. If we can't, then we will live in a world that doesn't allow us to secure our civil liberties.
Will Haun is a freshman in the School of Public Affairs, and is a conservative columnist for the Eagle.
