After the September 11th terror attacks, Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp housed members of al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist groups. Today, forty detainees are currently being held at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. If the Biden Administration is able to follow through on its promise to close the detention camp for its human rights abuses, where the detainees would be transferred to is up for debate. Thus, it is important to consider the repercussions of closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. 

At the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp of the forty detainees, six are currently recommended for transfer and twenty-two are being held indefinitely. Additionally, seven are charged, two are convicted, and three are awaiting trial in the military commissions system. Many of these prisoners can now challenge the legality of their detention. Those who are not charged with a crime, and not cleared for release are being deprived of due process, a basic American right. 

Significant court cases have established a legal foundation for the Detention Camp. In Rasul v. Bush (2004), a notable Supreme Court Case, ruled that detainees had the right to challenge their detention under habeas corpus. Habeas corpus rights ensure that individuals are held with charges and brought before a court prior to imprisonment. With the decision in Rasul, U.S. sovereignty was recognized as extending the judiciary’s jurisdiction over Guantanamo. Therefore, it is assumed that the values and rights of Americans transcend to those at the base, but cases have highlighted human rights abuse and have proven that this is not the reality for the detainees. On the other hand, it is argued that since nearly all Guantanamo detainees are not Americans, they do not deserve constitutional rights. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court held that President Bush could not create a separate system to have trials for the prisoners. This was a major check on the President’s power, reaffirming the detainees have the right to challenge their detention. This brought the torture and cruel punishments that were occurring in Guantanamo to the forefront of the world. 

The conflicting narrative surrounding the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp makes the decision to close the center even more contentious. In 2006, President George W. Bush firmly denied basic rights to the prisoners and did not observe the Geneva Conventions. The purpose of the Geneva Conventions is to “provide minimum protections, standards of humane treatment, and fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals who become victims of armed conflicts.” In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court disagreed with the President and held that the particular military commissions established unilaterally by President Bush to try detainees, violated the Geneva Conventions. Another notable case was Boumediene v. Bush (2008) which held that non-citizens have a right to habeas corpus and that federal civilian courts have jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus petitions from detainees. Later, in 2009, President Obama ordered a review to investigate if prisoners are being treated within the bounds of the Geneva Conventions. After looking into different cases, the report concluded that the Detention Camp was in fact in accordance with the Conventions. Additionally, the Pentagon asserted that for a maximum-security prison–holding some of the most dangerous prisoners–Guantanamo provided fair treatment. However, some prisoners who have been released from Guantanamo challenge these declarations by voicing their accounts of its inhumane treatment. 

Many international human rights and humanitarian groups have condemned the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp for the use of “enhanced interrogation.” U.S. and international laws both deem torture illegal. However, there is still dispute over whether torture is continuing at the Guantanamo Detention Camp. Reports of force-feeding, waterboarding, and other emotionally and physically draining techniques, have been cited. For example, force-feeding is the result of hunger strikes carried out by prisoners. It is important to note that force-feeding is not necessarily illegal under U.S. law. Nevertheless, force-feeding and enhanced interrogation techniques are one of the major driving factors in deciding whether or not to close the base. 

Another piece of evidence that is in support of closing Guantanamo is the violations of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Currently, no U.S. personnel have been prosecuted for infringing on the rights of Guantanamo prisoners. The United Nations has not acted forcefully either, despite revealing testimonials and reports, because of the United States’ dominant Security Council position. The legal and humanitarian conflicts taking place are irrefutable and make the argument for closing the base to be compelling as the detainees continue to reside in the “gray area” of America’s laws.

The controversial nature of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp is unchallenged, and in 2016 President Barack Obama promised to close the Detention Camp and put an end to the torture techniques. However, there were some major obstacles that the administration could not overcome. Firstly, Congress had passed a law banning Guantanamo’s closure. Even though Obama opposed this, there were other factors that hindered the closure of the Detention Camp. One reason was that many of the detainees have nowhere to go once released from Guantanamo. As of now, five of the forty prisoners are cleared for release, but where they will be placed is still a major question. Many prisoners continue to be detained because no country wants to repatriate them. Also, despite the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp being notoriously known to house the worst criminals, the base is a strategic location for the American military. Located in Cuba, Guantanamo is the prime real estate spot for the U.S.’ assets. To this day, lawmakers are debating the following questions: What prison would house those accused of terrorism? What judges would preside over their trials? Who would the jury be composed of? 

In 2018, President Trump signed an executive order to keep the prison open. This reversal of his predecessor’s policy was based upon the alleged need to continue the fight against terrorism. However, the symbolism of the camps being used as a sign of torture and injustice draws a distinct contrast to the values America stands for. Now, President Biden will tackle the same difficulties as he tries to follow through on his own campaign promise to shut down Guantanamo. He has not released any detailed information on how he plans to do so, but nonetheless has claimed that the need to resolve the legal and human rights abuses taking place is his top concern. 

Presently, the COVID-19 pandemic and the dispersal of vaccines have caused the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp to be a point of contention. In late January 2021, the Pentagon announced its plan to delay vaccine distribution to detainees. A Pentagon spokesperson cited protection protocols as the reason for the setback. However, this statement came out after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted, “[President Biden] told us he would have a plan to defeat the virus on day 1. He just never told us that it would be to give the vaccine to terrorists before most Americans.” In contrast to these views, many experts have voiced their opinion that prisoners should receive the vaccine before many other groups because they are in densely populated areas and an outbreak could occur easily. Also, the pandemic has been delaying the military commission proceedings and other trials for the prisoners. The prolonged pretrial and other extenuating circumstances have left the Guantanamo prisoners in a period of limbo. The Director of Security with Human Rights at Amnesty International asserted that “for almost two decades, the United States has denied justice to the hundreds of men the government has kept detained at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely, without charge or trial . . . forty men remain there today. It is long past time to close it down.” Ethical considerations have been disregarded at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, and many international human rights groups are urging the closure of the camp. President Biden will have to evaluate what to do with the remaining prisoners and the base in Cuba because it is militarily and culturally strategic to retain and develop relations with local Cubans. For many of its allies and adversaries, America has developed a reputation of circumventing or even outright violating international law. For them, the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp is yet another example. Thus, the citizens of the world and America are awaiting what will become of the Detention Camp considering the legal, humanitarian, and national security issues surrounding the decision.