B.O. jumps the gun in Cuba.

[Due to an editing error, the entire article was not printed in the paper version. I present it to you in full here. ---Editor]


Benjamin Kantack
UNL Poli-Sci and Spanish Major


The age-old maxim, "Only a fool tests the water with both feet," reminds us not to leap brashly into unknown bodies of water that might be cold, deep, and/or shark-infested.

On January 22nd, President Obama signed an executive order mandating that the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, close within one year. The infamous torture allegations against "Gitmo" have drawn much international criticism, prompting New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to call it the "Anti-Statue of Liberty."

I, for one, believe that torture ought to be eradicated, and to that end I applaud President Obama's efforts. But while many are celebrating, I feel that the decision lacks logistical feasibility. Obama has "jumped the gun" on Guantanamo, and unfortunately for America the waters are infested – not with sharks, but with terrorists.

The biggest unknown regarding Obama's Guantanamo policy is what to do with the detainees – a dilemma which on face value seems easily solvable, since there are only two options: send them to the U.S., or send them to other countries. But, as John McCain reminded Larry King, "[N]o country will take them back." NPR concurred one day later: "Detainees will likely end up in the U.S. anyway."

But of course, we'll welcome them with open arms. John Bellinger, a former legal adviser to Condoleezza Rice, predicts that "[T]he Obama administration will take a much closer look at whether they could take a handful of individuals into the United States as a way, essentially, to prime the pump and remove that reluctance from other countries."

But where do we put them? Most proponents of Obama's hasty decision have suggested American prisons, but many facilities posited as new detention sites aren’t up to snuff; Fort Leavenworth military prison, for example, doesn't even have a perimeter fence, and civilian homes are within a few feet of the building.

Even if security hurdles are overstepped, legal obstructions follow; according to a recent CNN.com article, "Existing laws…prohibit the co-mingling of detainees with other types of prisoners – civilian or military." But law enforcers are undeterred by such trifles as "the law." Defense Secretary Robert Gates told CNN that "We have identified a number of possible prisons here in the United States…. [However,] I've heard from members of Congress where all those prisons are located. Their enthusiasm is limited."

And it’s no wonder they aren’t jumping for joy. According to the Pentagon, approximately 11% of the 520 detainees released from Guantanamo to date have engaged in terrorist activities since their release. 11% may be a reasonable dropout rate for a high school, but for stopping terrorism it's nothing short of appalling. Ali al-Shiri and Saeed Shihri, two recent Gitmo "graduates," are suspected in the 2007 U.S. embassy bombing in Yemen, which killed sixteen.

Other nations don't want Guantanamo exiles, but neither do U.S. states. Placing terrorists in existing U.S. prisons is both illegal and insecure. Plus, about one in ten of the prisoners we release will return to reinforce the enemy's ranks. Is all this worth it to improve our international reputation?

Fulfilling a campaign promise should not be an excuse to throw caution to the wind. Yes, torture is bad. But we should not "jump the gun" and set deadlines without a clear plan of action.

I will close with the words of Senator Sam Brownback: "I disagree with setting a date for closing Guantanamo Bay's detention facility because I believe that adhering to a schedule is less important than preserving our security."