Housing Guantanamo Detainees in the United States

This is the way we imagine prison cells, but in a supermax facility, there would be a solid door with just a small window.

Just recently, the United States Senate turned down President Obama's request for funding to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba by a resounding margin (90-6). The ostensible reason was that the president had not yet presented a detailed plan for what to do with the remaining detainees, but there was also a lot of NIMBY (not in my back yard) feeling expressed in the Senate. No one seems to want dangerous terrorists housed in prisons in their state. As President Obama commented in a speech today, there would not be a reason to be looking to house detainees in the United States now if the Guantanamo Bay prison camp had not been opened in the first place, and it would not be necessary to put some prisoners in preventive detention (that is, hold them indefinitely without trial) if the detainees had not been tortured and otherwise mistreated to obtain evidence. Another thing the president has said on several occasions is that no one has ever escaped from a so-called supermax prison in the United States, even though those prisons do include some convicted terrorists in their population. If that is the case, is it really true that no state would accept Guantanamo detainees into a supermax facility?

A "supermax" prison is a highly secure detention facility in which especially dangerous prisoners are held in virtually solitary confinement under the strictest safety precautions. At the present time, there is only one supermax prison in the federal system, which is located at Florence, Colorado. Many so-called supermax prisons or prison units have been cited for all sorts of human rights abuses connected with the level of control believed to be necessary to secure the inmates. Many politicians seem to be afraid that a prison housing terror suspects relocated from Guantanamo Bay would be the focus of efforts by Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations to release the prisoners. That might be true, although based on history to date, it seems improbable. In any case, especially in the current economic climate, there seems no reason to believe that some states would not accept small supermax facilities or units to house Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

Maybe I believe this mainly because prisons are a popular industry in upstate New York, not that far from where I live, and there was a great outcry in some towns when Governor Paterson proposed closing some underutilized prison facilities upstate. I can't believe that, given enough money, some town in upstate New York would not agree to "host" a supermax facility, no matter who the inmates were going to be. And if New York state is like this, there must be other states with similar circumstances.

Whatever happens, there needs to be a careful and rigorous examination of how many prisoners left at Guantanamo need to be detained in the future. We need to accept a few of the detainees ourselves, assuming there are any who would accept living in a country that has treated them so badly, and we need to lean on other countries to accept some of them, as well. There must be a reasonably fair trial process for the dangerous or incorrigible ones, and then they need to be sent to supermax prisons in the USA. I say "reasonably fair" because, given the deplorable actions taken during the Bush administration, some of the worst offenders could not be convicted in a normal criminal trial under U.S. law. After all, how many times was Khalid Sheik Mohammad waterboarded? There may also have to be preventive detention legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress to justify holding the prisoners who simply cannot be tried and convicted. And while all that is going on, it's time to offer supermax facilities to states that are willing to take them.

So let's imagine that a supermax prison or prison unit were constructed in upstate New York to house some of the most dangerous Guantanamo detainees. Given all the security precautions that must be taken, no such prison is going to be pleasant to live in. That said, one could attempt to construct a facility that provided humane conditions for long-term detainees. The rooms, in which the prisoners might spend 23 of 24 hours each day, must be large enough for people to move around comfortably and contain whatever furniture is safe for a prisoner to have. That means things that the prisoner can't use to injure himself or a guard or another inmate. The inmates must have an opportunity to exercise, preferably outside whenever possible, be given decent food that complies with any religion-based dietary restrictions, and whatever medical care is necessary, including mental health treatment.

The prisoners must have the chance to worship, to watch television, and to read whatever they want. There should be no physical or psychological abuse of any kind, and no control based on drugs. Every cell must have a good-sized window with bulletproof glass that looks out onto a pleasant landscape, such as a garden or a park. If there is a way for the inmates to socialize on a limited basis, they should be permitted to do so. Anything that can be done within the realm of safety to stimulate their minds and provide exercise for their bodies should be done.

Yes, I know what you're thinking: Such a prison would be incredibly expensive. Too bad. If we had not created this situation, we wouldn't have to deal with the consequences of it now. It's our responsibility, and we have to assume the burden, whether we like it or not.