Should it stand? A hard look at Guantanamo Bay

Joshua Whiteley
October 27, 2009
Filed under Editorials

The most recent development concerning this issue is that President Obama has ordered the facility closed within a year.  The president justifies this because it sticks to the “ideals that give us the strength and the moral high ground to be able to effectively deal with the unthinking violence that we see emanating from terrorist organizations around the world”.  Ignoring the run-on, the president sees Guantanamo Bay as a breach in morality.  And in this aspect, he is correct.  Torture is a violation of human rights, an immoral act against our fellow man.  Quite simply, Guantanamo Bay is sinful, and should be shut down.  Unfortunately, it would be naïve to believe that the world was that simple.

Despite his wish to stay on “the moral high ground” the President still seems intent on fighting a war.  In fact, he wishes to increase the troop number in Afghanistan.  Now couldn’t one say that war itself is just as immoral as torture, if not worse?  Certainly one could say that, on a moral level, the war is wrong.  I guess the difference is that the war has a purpose that would ensure the safety of Americans, as the Commander in Chief stated in the March 27 address: “to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the al-Qa’ida safe haven that it was before 9/11”.  The president believes that this is a cause worth fighting: safety from our enemies.  If our efforts there would prevent 9/11 from repeating itself, most would say it is worth it.  Yet this is where the true sin occurs.

Contrary to what most of Americans believe, Guantanamo Bay is not a site of torture; it is an interrogation facility.  Torture is inflicting physical or emotional pain on another being; interrogation is doing so for information.  You see, interrogation is valid for the same reason the war is: protecting America and its citizens.  Interrogation can reveal information vital to the safety of not only our troops, but ours as well.  The counter-argument to this is that interrogation does not necessarily reveal anything of value because people under extreme pain will say anything to make it stop, regardless of its accuracy.  But then again, the war doesn’t guarantee that al-Qa’ida will not return to Afghanistan.  We cannot ensure that Afghanistan will not descend into chaos again, that it will not revert back to its original state.  Yet the president seems intent on winning the war, using the same logic that is used to justify interrogation: preventative measures.

The president’s logic (or lack thereof) would be almost humorous if not for the consequences of it.  By failing to approve of interrogation, he betrays the very soldiers he sends out to fight.  The closing of Guantanamo Bay shows that the president is not willing to make the same sacrifice for the troops that they make for the country he leads.  He might as well walk up to every sailor, every marine, every pilot, every man and woman fighting in Afghanistan to say,“I am not doing everything in my power to ensure that you do not come home in a body bag because I cannot make the hard decisions.”  That, my fellow students, is the true injustice here.  The soldiers on the front line, many of them not much older than an ‘Iolani senior, are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our safety, yet we are not willing to make a small sacrifice for theirs.

My frustration with the president’s decision is not due to my own opinions on the war, but rather that he chooses to fight the war yet does not wish to follow through.  If he decided to end the war, I would not have a problem with the closing of Guantanamo Bay.  At least then he is remaining true to his values.  Whatever decision he makes, he must be willing to commit to it, no matter the political repercussions.  No matter what you believe about the war, the situation now is wrong.   If the president is willing to fight a war, he must be willing to do what it takes to win it without unnecessary American blood.  The president’s decision to not defend the troops to his fullest power is more immoral than the facility he wishes to close.  So to answer my original question: yes, as long as we fight this war, Guantanamo Bay should stand; otherwise, no.

Looking back at my first paragraph, I now realize why I chose to write this.  In this article, I am doing what I can, to my fullest ability, to defend our troops.  I am voicing my opinion in hopes that our government will listen, and right this wrong, whether it results in the end of the war or the re-opening of Guantanamo Bay.  I am taking a moral stance and committing to it, something that the president fails to do.