This week, the House of Representatives will debate closing the detention facility located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Leading up to the debate, it is important to correct some of the distortions that have built up over the past 11 years. This document is designed to lay out the facts regarding GTMO. 

MYTH: Closing GTMO would endanger our security and invite terrorism attacks.

FACT: There are ZERO facts to support the claim that trying or detaining suspected terrorists in the United States would endanger national security. More than 400 defendants charged with crimes related to international terrorism have been successfully convicted in the United States since 9/11, including one former GTMO detainee, who was tried in New York City (see United States v. Ghaliani), with no security incidents. More than 300 individuals convicted of crimes related to international terrorism are currently incarcerated in federal prisons within the United States with no escapes or attacks in attempts to free them.

MYTH: Closing GTMO would be expensive.

FACT: Keeping GTMO open is expensive. In fact, it is the most expensive prison in the world. We are currently spending approximately $1.6 MILLION per detainee each year at Guantanamo Bay, compared to $34,046 per inmate at a high-security federal prison. The cost of transfers to the United States and construction and modification of prisons in the United States would not equal the continued cost of GTMO. The FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act provides more than $260 million in operations costs, and more than $186 million for construction to continue operating a “temporary” facility. The financial costs for keeping GTMO open are massive and unnecessary.

MYTH: Security costs for trials in the United States for GTMO detainees would be extremely high.

FACT: One GTMO detainee has already been tried in New York City (see United States v. Ghaliani)  with costs on a par with other terrorism cases. Additionally, trying individuals in a military commission at GTMO is excessively expensive. For FY14, the Department of Defense has requested more than $90 million to operate military commissions at GTMO.

MYTH: GTMO Detainees are the worst of the worst.

FACT: While a number of the detainees represent the “worst of the worst,” such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other accused 9/11 conspirators, 86 detainees have been recommended by the intelligence community and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for transfer or release.

MYTH: Terrorism trials in federal civilian courts have resulted in the leak of classified evidence.

FACT: Again, our federal court system has an impeccable record of successfully trying suspected terrorists without compromising national security. In the “Blind Sheik” case in 1993, a list of co-conspirators was released to the public, but due to an error, not a failure of security procedures. Mistakes can happen anywhere and military commission procedures for handling of classified evidence largely copy the procedures used in federal civilian courts.

MYTH: GTMO detainees transferred to the United States may receive additional constitutional rights.

FACT: GTMO detainees have rights now.  They are supervised by the federal civilian courts, provided with right of appeal to the United States Supreme Court, and have habeas corpus rights. Any conviction by a military commission will be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

MYTH: Keeping the facility open does not have a negative impact on our national security and other foreign policy objectives.

FACT: Our allies disagree.  The international community continues to demand that GTMO be closed; the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights says that GTMO violates international law; the European Parliament has continually demanded that GTMO be closed; world leaders point to GTMO when defending their human rights records; foreign countries only consent to allowing their nationals to be tried in the United States if they are not sent to GTMO. And Al Qaeda effectively and continuously uses it as a recruitment tool.

 

###

 



Date Title
8/1/16 Smith Statement on Air Strikes in Libya
Date Title
7/20/16 Smith Statement on the Passing of Congressman Mark Takai
7/16/16 Smith Statement on the Attempted Coup in Turkey
7/12/16 Statement by Armed Services & Foreign Affairs Democrats on South China Sea Decision
7/11/16 Smith Statement on New Troop Levels and the Readiness Crisis
Date Title
6/30/16 Smith Statement on the Defense Department’s New Policy on Transgender Servicemembers Files
6/30/16 Smith Statement on Navy Report into the Farsi Island Incident
6/27/16 Democrats Issue Benghazi Report and Release Interview Transcripts
6/21/16 Smith Introduces Bill to Reduce Excess Military Infrastructure
6/9/16 Smith Statement on the House Republicans' National Security Agenda
Date Title
5/18/16 Smith Announces Opposition to FY2017 NDAA
5/18/16 HASC Democratic Summary of the FY17NDAA Files
5/17/16 Statement on the Rules Committee’s “Dead-of-Night” Move to Overturn Women in the Selective Service Provision
5/16/16 Smith Letter: Benghazi Committee’s Credibility Shredded by Statements From Benghazi Committee’s Own Counsel
5/12/16 Smith Statement on Defense Appropriations Bill
5/8/16 Smith Statement on the Two-Year Anniversary of the Benghazi Committee
5/2/16 Ranking Member Smith Statement on Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth’s Final NDAA Markup
5/2/16 Ranking Member Smith Statement on Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez’s Final NDAA Markup
Date Title
4/28/16 Republicans Vote to Allow Confederate Flag to Fly at The Citadel
4/28/16 Smith Statement on Passage of the FY2017 NDAA Out of Committee
4/26/16 Ranking Member Smith Statement on NDAA Funding
4/26/16 Military Letters Confirm Sage Grouse Protections Don’t Compromise Readiness, National Security
4/26/16 Smith, Scott, and Cummings Oppose NDAA Amendment to Reward Pervasive Violators of Employment, Non-Discrimination, and Safety Laws with New Government Contracts
4/25/16 Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act Chairman’s Mark Summary
4/25/16 Ranking Member Smith Statement on Congresswoman Gwen Graham’s Decision Not to Seek Reelection