For seven years, President Barack’s efforts to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have been thwarted by Congress. But the President has not given up. This week, he released his blueprint for closing the facility.
Of the 91 remaining detainees, 35 have already been approved for transfer to other countries. The remaining detainees would be either sent to yet to be determined prison facilities in the U.S. or relocated to other nations if an accelerated review process determines they no longer pose a risk. The President has an uphill battle to get Congress to sign off on his proposal.
Matthew Olsen, a member of The Cipher Brief Network, is well versed in terrorism issues and the federal judicial system, having served as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center and as a federal prosecutor. Olsen says closing GITMO is a political problem, not a national security one.
The Cipher Brief: What’s your over all take on the President’s plan to close GITMO? Does Gitmo need to be closed sooner rather than later?
Matt Olsen: Guantanamo should be closed, and it should be closed as soon as we can responsibly and safely close the facility. The president has made the case that the continued running of a detention facility at Guantanamo is not in our national security interests. The facility does continue to be a point of resonance for jihadists and is used for propaganda purposes. It also is a source of friction with our allies around the world. And it is very expensive. I support proceeding with the detailed plan that the President has set forth to shut down the detention facility there. This is overdue.
TCB: Why hasn’t it been closed then?
MO: In my view it hasn’t been closed because of the politics around the Guantanamo issue. There has been a lot of misinformation about Guantanamo. The truth is that there are a significant number of people who can still be securely transferred out of Guantanamo. Individuals who were identified in 2009 as approved for transfer can be securely moved out of Guantanamo. Then there is the smaller number who can be prosecuted, whether in military commissions or federal courts. And there is another small number who will need to be held in long-term detention, but those individuals could be held inside the United States rather than Guantanamo. The crux of the issue now is the ability to move individuals who will still be detained or potentially prosecuted into the United States. And that issue is a political problem not a national security one.
TCB: Critics argue these dangerous, accused terrorists pose a threat to U.S. security if they were to be held and/or tried on US soil. However, the President pointed to the successes in holding terrorism trials in Article III Federal courts—the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber, the Boston Marathon bomber. All were convicted in the U.S., and all are being held in U.S. prisons without incident. Should these accused terrorists at GITMO be detained and/or tried in the U.S.? Do you think the U.S. prison system is capable of safely housing them?
MO: I have no doubt our federal prison system can safely handle these prisoners. Our federal prisons handle dangerous terrorists, but they also handle all manner of dangerous, violent criminals, and they do so in a very safe and secure manner and, by the way, at a much lower cost than it currently costs to maintain Guantanamo.
TCB: Should military commissions be the exception rather than the rule for terrorist trials? Should terrorists be tried in Article III federal courts?
MO: There are terrorism cases prosecuted in federal courts around the country, both involving individuals who have been apprehended inside the United States but also defendants picked up outside the United States. These prosecutions have gone forward successfully under the current Administration, just as they did under the prior administration. Our federal courts and prosecutors have a long track record of bringing terrorists to justice and incapacitating them with long prison sentences. So military commissions really should be the exception. That is the consequence of having a well regarded and established justice system in our federal courts. So by and large, our federal courts should be handling, as they have for decades, terrorism prosecutions.
TCB: Right now, it would be illegal for President Obama to house Gitmo detainees on U.S. soil. What would need to happen to get Congress to change the law, and how likely is that?
MO: I’m aware that some in Congress have said it is unlikely that the President’s plan would be approved. For this plan to be successful, Congress would have to approve the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to the United States. There does not seem to be widespread political support in Congress for the plan. And the crux of the plan is the ability to move detainees to the United States, whether for prosecution or for detention.
TCB: Short of changing the law, is there any unilateral action Obama could take that would enable him to bring Gitmo detainees to the U.S.?
MO: I know there has been some discussion about potential unilateral action by the executive branch. It strikes me that is not the right course of action here. The best way to achieve the end of detention at Guantanamo is to do so with Congress and the President acting together to eliminate the current ban on moving detainees out of Guantanamo.
