Keep Gitmo Going

The United States has released many detainees to Saudi Arabiafor placement in the Saudi “rehabilitation” program.  The effectiveness of the program is debatable, at best.     At least eleven Saudis who were released from Guantánamo and went through the Saudi rehabilitation program appeared on a list of 85 wanted terrorism suspects in February 2009 who have since fled the country. [10]  Included on the list was Mohammed al-Awfi, a former Guantánamo detainee, who became an al-Qaeda commander in Yemen.[11] Documents obtained at a former house of Osama bin Laden show that al-Awfi was associated with al-Qaeda and that he fought against U.S. forces in Kandahar, Afghanistan.[12]

Some of the most dangerous terrorists are among the roughly 250 detainees still held at Guantánamo, including Khaled Sheikh Mohammad (KSM), the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and the kidnapping-murder of journalist Daniel Pearl.[13]  Others include:

• Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, a key facilitator for the 9/11 attacks and lead operative in a plot to crash hijacked aircraft into theUnited Kingdom’sHeathrowAirport;

• Abu Faraj al-Libi, KSM’s operational successor and number three leader of al-Qaeda after bin Laden and al-Zawahiri;

• Abdal al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the mastermind behind the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole; and

• Abu Zubaydah, a facilitator of attempted Millennium terrorist attacks on targets in the United Statesand Jordan.[14]

In light of the nature of the current Guantánamo detainees and the demonstrated unreliability of foreign custody over similarly dangerous individuals, the best way to keepAmericasafe is to keep the detention/interrogation facility at Guantánamo open and operational.  The other alternatives increase the risk to the American public.  As theAfghanistanandSaudi Arabiaepisodes make clear, the transfer of these detainees into foreign custody creates the risk that they will return to terrorism and plan or carry out attacks either abroad against American interests or here inside theUnited States.

Transferring detainees to facilities inside the United Stateswould also pose a direct threat to the safety of the American public.  Any facility holding al-Qaeda detainees would immediately become a terrorist target.  Reports have indicated that the Pentagon is investigating three specific facilities in which to house these detainees: FortLeavenworthin Kansas, the Navy Brig in North Charleston, South Carolina, and CampPendletonin California.[15]  It would appear, however, that Fort Leavenworth may be a non-starter – then-Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, along with the State Legislature, recently objected strongly to any transfer of Guantánamo detainees to Fort Leavenworth.[16]

Even if a location were found within the United Statesin which to house detainees, significant issues would remain to be addressed. According to Charles Stimson, former Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Detainee Affairs, “You can’t commingle them [Guantánamo detainees] with military detainees, so you’d have to set up a separate wing or clear out the facility…[a]nd you would have to address secondary and tertiary [security] concerns within the town, the county and the state” to protect from the increased risk of terrorist attack.[17]  Indeed, the Guantánamo Bay Detention Facility was chosen because it served as the safest location at which to house the detainees.  The facility is secure from enemy attack and provides the least risk to American citizens in that it keeps the detainees and those who would try to free them far away from major populated areas.

In order even to begin addressing the very real public safety concerns associated with housing Guantánamo detainees in a facility on American soil, the U.S. government would have to undertake the construction of one or more uniquely designed prison facilities, or substantially upgrade existing facilities.  This reality was reflected in the U.S. Department of Defense recent request for $50 million to begin the construction necessary to house transferred Guantánamo detainees inside the United States.[18]  Given the current economic crisis in which the United States finds itself, spending tens of millions of dollars to construct facilities that match the standards of a facility already in existence is highly irresponsible.