Barack Obama and Guantánamo

Better safe than sorry

Civil-libertarians are falling out of love with the president

See article

Readers' comments



xxx hardcore

Actually, the USA terrorist nation tortures people to make them say they have links to terrorism.

This was even admitted by a judge recently.

Fouad al-Rabiah was tortured to make him say he was a terrorist. The USA also tortures people to make them say Saddam had links to al Queada, to go to war.

Most of the people held by the USA are innocent.

Yankee Doodle

Kushluk wrote: "Isn´t there some compromise possible between full public trial and illegal detention with no trial? Millitary Tribunal? ..."

No compromise is possible because of the Geneva Conventions that define the Laws of War on this issue. Military tribunals are always required by the Geneva Conventions during war. Trials are otherwise illegal and they would be a war crime.

The US cannot give them civilian trials also because US law only has jurisdiction within the US. The US cannot legally go around the world arresting people and the giving them trials. If this were not a war, they could not be held at all.

Under the Geneva Conventions each was offered a hearing to determine if they were captured as a combatant. Those who were not were all released, as international law requires. Those who were determined to be combatants will be held indefinately without trial, exactly as the Geneva Conventions require.

Abdelkader Hamdaoui

No American presidents had ever condone torture, they may be stupid but not that stupid. In fact most American soldiers don't even know how. Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse was child's play with kid's gloves and claims of waterbboarding in Guantanamo were mere agitprop. Real torture is what you get in France and Spain; what they do to the Basque murderers, and quite rightly so, you don't want to know. In Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey not to mention Hispanic central and South America - anything goes. Americans, especially the so-called civil-libertarians should stop being so goody-goody two faced.


Mr.Obama as US President you have money,power and unipolar leadership of the world.But it is again proved that these can't give you peace.Bush started killing innocent people to take revenge after twin tower tragedy.Hope you'll close Guantainamo keeping you words and stop killing millions of people in Iraq and Afganistan.
Hope you'll eliminate the double standard US policy toward Palestine,if you can do it you might be remembered as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln- the two most famous former US Presidents.


GW detains these guys in Guantanamo and he is evil, and is crucified by the US liberal press.

Obama determines it is a good mention by liberal press

I hope to never hear another complaint from my liberal countrymen. The refusal of the liberal press to cover issues like this in a fair manner is what gives crediblity to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

The two camps are different sides of the exact same coin...if the free press (i.e. no pre-set agenda) exists somewhere in the US, I certainly am not aware of it.


The majority of those left in Limbo @ Guantanamo, are Yemenis. Nobody seems to want them, not even their own Government which is barely Hanging on to Power & has come to the brink of becoming a "Failed State"!

God Only KNOWS how many of the 97 Yemenis still being held, are most likely innocent. Even when a Federal judge orders the release of Prisoner, in this case a Yemeni Captive (identified by the NY Times today) Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed, Internee Security No. 692, it took nearly six months to comply with the Court Order!!

Sometimes it feels like NOTHING has changed, regardless of who occupies the White House. It doesn't matter how much "Lip Service" they pay to ending the despicable practice of TORTURE & RESPECTING Human Rights. Because when it comes to this Cancer we call the: "Military Industrial Complex", we are all witnessing the Other Side of the Same Coin!!!

Dissapointed, doesn't begin to describe how many of US feel about the President's continuation of his predcessor's "Evil Legacy". Who cares if he denounces Torture, yet the Drones & Predators continue to carry out (almost Daily) Summary Executions!!!!

I for one, have long ago passed the Dissapointment stage. Now I'm just Disgusted...........

Peace, Love & Respect.

Yankee Doodle

The Economist seems to not understand the actual facts in regard to Guantanamo but is just repeating propaganda. For example: "On torture, Mr Obama has been absolute: no American is now allowed to torture or mistreat a detainee."

It has never been legal for any American to torture anyone anywhere in the world for any reason. This is a fact that The Economist missed in this propaganda piece. Torture is commonly alleged, but it has never been proven, and such charges have always been dismissed by the federal courts for lack of evidence. If there is no evidence that may be brought to court, and The Economist actually has evidence no one else does, why not also offer it to the courts and ensure Justice? There is no evidence of the torture of anyone anywhere, so why does The Economist not discuss this actual fact?

Before Obama's election it was possible that the government had tortured people and this was being kept secret. This is no longer a possibility, the Obama Administration now knows every secret and STILL there is no evidence that anyone was tortured.

The Geneva Conventions are the real issue here as they forbid giving suspected terrorists trials (unless they are alleged war criminals). This is for their own protection, it is an internationally respected civil right. If Obama were to put them on trial, Obama would become a war criminal under the Geneva Conventions. Why doesn't The Economist tell us the actual facts?


The fundamental question is how many hands do you want on a steering wheel when driving down a foggy and dangerous road.

I look at this like its game theory.

There is a quadrant that says that we should keep the commander-in-chief under a microscope and give him very limited powers with no exception. The game is set up so that is the optimal choice.

Everybody chooses that but just like the Prisoner's Dilemma it ends in tragedy.

I wish I could draw a diagram, but hopefully some of you get my point.


Two points: the article left out mention of our prision in Afganistan at the air base and two, perhaps the previous administration was not off mark after all.


There is nothing illegal with detaining members of al-Qaida indefinitely. The United States is currently at war with al-Qaida. While members of guerrilla organizations don't qualify as POW's (the US is not signatory to Additional Protocol I), they can legally be detained by the military for the duration of hostilities.


Isn´t there some compromise possible between full public trial and illegal detention with no trial? Millitary Tribunal? Closed court? Something in between obviously illegal and what would divulge dangerous amounts of information?

Moderation here seems the best resort.

ian fisch

Would it really be so difficult to keep an eye on 200 or so people if you let them go free? Keep them in the US. Assign a couple people to monitor each of them 24/7. Give them an ankle bracelet.

It might be expensive, but I think it's worth it to uphold the ideals of the Constitution.


Safe or sorry is a false choice. Unfortunately the US has many enemies. Detaining a couple of hundred indefinitely won’t make much difference.

America declared a ‘War’ on Terror. Whether the detainees are guilty of real crimes, merely fought in the ‘War’ on Terror (and hence should be subject to the Geneva Conventions), or are innocent but so angry at the US that they can never be released is irrelevant.

Justice demands that they should be released (to Afghanistan if no one else will take them) – and if they go on to commit crimes, they should be punished by being arrested (by policemen) and tried in civil courts. This will increase America’s security.

Their detention is similar to praying to one God (particular to time and place) out of all the possible ones imaginable, as an insurance policy, in a dangerous situation.

As Talleyrand commented, regarding Napoleon’s murder of the Duc D’Enghien, it’s worse than a crime – it’s a mistake…

A crime was committed and thousands of people died, but America’s disproportionate response has caused terrible moral and financial damage to the US.

Not to mention the collateral damage including hundreds of thousands of (mainly) Muslim victims.

America’s friends must discourage this great country from continuing to injure itself and others.

I haven't mentioned Obama for a reason. He appears to have no principles and is only interested in re election. For him neither justice nor morality appear to matter. and therefore he will never take a moral stand.


Without the right to a trial, whether considered fair or not, people within the United States have no freedoms. With the current laws, we may be arrested for any reason and not informed of why we are being arrested. If we are going to allow this random arrest policy, the least we owe the inmates (Guantanamo or other) is a trial. Even if the trial is not considered fair, at least the individuals and the public (perhaps more importantly) will know what they have been arrested for.

Perhaps similar to President Obama, I have concerns about our safety if we release the Guantanamo detainees--not because of what they did to get there, but because of the abuse they have received since arriving there. If I were held in prison for no known reason for years on end with no trial, my personal fury as well as that of my family would be very hard to contain. The only hope to fixing this problem is honesty, which is very difficult to come by these days.


The overwhelming question that needs to be asked is whether President Obama is, taking a leaf out of W's book, flouting international legality, in the guise of security measures. The fact is that his presidential campaign was foregrounded and edificed with the idea of Change. W blatantly disregarded international norms, the question is- has he set an ugly precedent that administrations are bound to follow?



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

