The Issue with Closing Guantanamo Bay

The article “Don't Close Guantanamo” by Jennifer Daskal was published in The Newyork Times on January 10th 2013. Daskal is presently an Associate Professor of law at the American University, where she teaches and writes in the fields of cyber, national security, criminal and constitutional law. Daskal has also served as senior counterterrorism counsel at the Human Rights Watch. In her article, Daskal talks about her opinion on the issue of closing Guantanamo Bay, a US military base and detention camp in Cuba. Daskal advocates for not closing the prison immediately, the subject of the article remains of current interest even after six years of its publication. As of march 2019, 40 prisoners remain at Guantanamo even though its closure has been advocated since before 2008. Although Daskal acknowledges her initial support for closing Guantanamo by the end of the article she manages to convince the reader to change their perspective too. She does this by building an excellent argument wherein she states how the prison’s facilities have improved and showcases an a grudging acceptance for the fact that that the closure of Guantanamo is just not likely to happen immediately.

Daskal argues that Guantanamo should not be closed, that doing so would actually do much more harm than good. She explains how the standards of living have vastly improved and guantanamo in 2013 is entirely different from Guantanamo in 2002. She further argues that moving these detainees to the US to be held in supermax prisons would setback more than a decade’s worth of progress and effectively make their living conditions harsher. She suggests that instead of focusing on the closure of the facility, we should instyead focus on issues that have allowed the existence of Guantanamo to be justified.she provides a solution by suggesting that “The end of war” should be defined, as US troops pull out of Afghanistan many argue that the war against terrorism is coming to an end which would do away with the legal justifications for the detentions. She insists that the solution is not to create another Guantanamo, this time around on US soil but to begin the long and arduous process of transferring, prosecuting and realising the prisoners.

In order to fully understand the article’s premise it is important to familiarize oneself with the history and context of Guantanamo. At the time of its establishment in 2002, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfield said that the camp was established to detain extremely dangerous people and to prosecute them for war crimes. The facility first came into the spotlight when detainees reported cases of abuse and torture which were denied by the Bush administration. In a 2005 Amnesty International report the facility was called the “Gulag” of our times. In 2006 the United Nations demanded that Guantanamo be shut down with no effect. President Obama advocated for immediate closure of the detention camp but was met with opposition by both the republicans and the democrats. In 2018 president Trump signed an executive order to keep the detention camp open indefinitely. Much controversy surrounds the legend of Guantanamo, it has been called everything from unconstitutional, illegal, a blot on the US’s commitment to the rule of law and a recruitment center for Al-Qaeda. This raises the question “Why should Guantanamo be kept open ?” the author attempts to answer this very question in the article.

The article though simplistic in its use of language is not really comprehensible by the general public. Its intended audience is largely the readership of a prestigious newspaper and more specifically those who are familiar with the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. In that sense it presupposes a certain amount of knowledge on the issue and doesn't really elaborate on terms like “Al-Qaeda 7” which would already be familiar to those who possess some information regarding the topic. Apart from that, the text has a very clear and formal tone as is appropriate when discussing a matter of such grave importance. The author builds her argument in distinct stages, first she states her previous stance, then talks about how and why it has changed, establishes that her new stance is the correct one and then convinces the reader to reconsider their perspective, lastly she discusses the issues associated with her position and provides solutions.

Daskal begins the article with “In 2010, I was branded a member of the Al-Qaeda 7” a dramatic and engaging opening which is sure to catch the reader’s eye. Not only does this serve to hook the reader but also ensures their compliance in reading the article further. Another noticeable thing is the fact that Daskal openly acknowledges her previous stance on the issue and how she was previously in favour of immediate closure of the prison. This is something we don't see writers do often as it can easily jeopardize their claim but in this case it works out perfectly for Daskal as it establishes her as an unbiased and reasonable authority, which makes the audience more likely to receive her work positively. The author makes ample use of persuasive appeals all through the article. She ethos when she says “A position that has been taken up by the likes of former President George W. Bush, former Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates and former Secretary of Defence Colin L. Powell” all of theses people mentioned have occupied extremely important offices and are very influential but most importantly are relevant authorities on the Guantanamo issue, their agreement helps to increase the credibility of the author’s claim. The use of pathos is more subtle, Daskal makes a point of noting the harsh living conditions and how human rights advocates regard it as a breach of basic rights and protection. The use of logos is central to Daskal’s argument, she tries to convince people why closing guantanamo immediately would be unideal, in order to do that she builds her argument in such a way that the reader is forced to realise that logically closing Guantanamo immediately would cause more harm.

Overall , Daskal has produced a wonderful argument which is extremely effective in persuading its audience to side with her. That does not mean that its entirely free of flaws, perhaps the text could benefit from an inclusion of a brief history of Guantanamo Bay in order to familiarize the reader with the issue and effectively widen the article’s readership. Despite its q shortcomings, Daskal’s “Don't Close Guantanamo” is a masterfully crafted opinion piece which successfully sways its audience to resonate with the author’s point of view.

Works Cited

1. Swain, Elise “IT’S STILL OPEN: WILL THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY PRISON BECOME A 2020 ISSUE? The Intercept, 3 March 2019
2. Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Pace. 'Defense.gov Transcript: DoD News Briefing . Department of Defense. 22 January 2002
3. Kahn, Irene 'Amnesty International Report 2005 Speech by Irene Khan at Foreign Press Association' 25 May 2005
4. Norton-Taylor, Richard; Goldenberg, Suzanne. 'Judge's anger at US torture' 17 February 2006