Watching the debate between the president and members of Congress over what to do with the military prison at Guantanamo Bay gives a perfect example of shortsighted government policy.
Back in 2002, even with the national fear that followed the 9/11 attacks, the idea we could round up a bunch of terrorists in Afghanistan and fly them to tropical Cuba was an idea that should have been questioned.
But, as is usually the case with quick expediency over diligent forethought, we jumped in without a clear plan of how we’d ever finish the project––a supersize version of a do-it-yourselfer thinking he can change just a light fixture and won’t end up renovating the whole room for the next six months.
Among the issues we rushed through was what were we supposed to do with these “unlawful combatants” when we got them there? What process would we use to try them? Where will they go when Afghanistan is returned to normalcy? What about if some of them are innocent? What about the ones so hostile we can’t ever let them go?
In hindsight, these things should have been considered. We’ve been running prisons since this country saw it’s first settlers, but lessons learned over the past 200 years were ignored.
The problem is the country jumped to create something special or new in an emergency situation instead of relying on standard procedures for military prisons and courts and normal battlefield protocol. Existing federal Supermax prisons already functioning hold more than 300 people considered dangerous terrorists. Still, some lawmakers oppose bringing any more Guantanamo prisoners to the United States.
Adding to the complexity of closing issues are the prisoners at Guantanamo that neither the previous nor current administration want to put on trial.
Colin Powell, former Secretary of State under the Bush administration, said they had wanted to close Guantanamo also, but the legal issues involving people they didn’t want to prosecute for security reasons complicated things so much they left it for the current administration.
President Obama said he wanted Guantanamo closed along a one-year timeline, but the administration hasn’t offered any solid plan. Both the house and senate have voted to withhold funding for closure until a clearcut plan is presented.
Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has endorsed closing in general but cautions there are very dangerous people at Guantanamo and some different options to study.
And off we go for another seven years. It’s true the security and legal issues are complicated. But if our country could capture these prisoners, transport them to the tropics, and hold them there for more than five years, surely we are as capable of moving them to an existing prison and safely holding them there.
Regardless of the plan ultimately hammered out for Guantanamo, this should serve as a stark reminder of long-term consequences whenever government rushes to create something new. Avoid knee-jerk reactions to let government build anything (whether it’s a prison, a bailout plan, a healthcare plan––or even a county’s animal-control infrastructure). A worthy answer for any problem must be thought through for the long-term.
What shall we do with stocks, bad mortgages, shares in an auto company? These are now fall-out questions from the present federal bailout – where again the horse is out of the stall.
In healthcare reform, what’s to be done for patients who want to see unapproved specialists or to have experimental treatments for chronic conditions? And how would we fund all that?
Even locally, let’s hope the commissioner and sheriff have good answers when they’re asked, “What are y’all going to do with all those dogs in the long run?”
Prisoners at Guantanamo serve as perfect symbols of a shortsighted start up. So now what’s to be done with them?
|
|
