News

Barack Obama has promised to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after he becomes president of the United States. More power to him. Ever since the world got its first glimpse of manacled prisoners and wire-mesh cages in 2002, the camp has been a public-relations nightmare for Washington - a symbol, say its many critics, of how the "war on terror" has led it to break its own rules against torture and illegal detention.

But closing Guantanamo is easier said than done. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said two years ago he wanted to close the camp. Even President George Bush tried to get rid of the place. Yet, Gitmo lives on, still home to roughly 250 prisoners stranded in legal limbo.

The trouble is that Guantanamo fills a useful purpose. When the United States started scooping up terrorists and jihadists from foreign fields after Sept. 11, 2001, it faced a conundrum. Treating them as ordinary prisoners of war was not on. To begin with, they weren't. They wore no uniform and usually fought for no country. PoW status would have prevented their captors from interrogating them, robbing Washington of potentially life-saving information about terrorist networks and future attacks.

Treating them as ordinary criminals seemed wrong, too. That would have meant bringing them back to the U.S. for trial, exposing judges and juries to danger and affording them all the rights of a U.S. defendant accused of robbing a corner store.

Seven years later, Mr. Obama faces just these problems as he puzzles over how to close Guantanamo. His campaign advisers talked about a "try or release" policy. After reviewing the files on the remaining detainees, Washington would release the small fry and send them to their home countries for prosecution or resettlement. The hard cases would go to federal court for trial.

But releasing the small fry is harder than it sounds. Washington cannot legally send detainees to countries that might torture or prosecute them, thus ruling out quite a few places. Other countries refuse to take them back. About 60 detainees have already been approved for release or transfer but remain in Guantanamo for exactly these reasons.

The hard cases pose even thornier problems. More than 300 detainees have been released or transferred since 2004, so many of those who remain are, indeed, what former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld called "the worst of the worst." They include top attack planners for al-Qaeda, bodyguards of Osama bin Laden, men vetted as potential 9/11 hijackers, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has confessed to masterminding the 9/11 attacks.

Where and how do you put such men on trial? U.S. state and local officials are already balking at the idea of playing host to the world's most dangerous men. Even if you could find the right venue, what kind of court would try them? Mr. Obama would abolish military tribunals such as the one prosecuting Canadian Omar Khadr. But ordinary courts might not accept the evidence that intelligence agencies have compiled, some of it secured through coercion or gathered from foreign governments that don't want their involvement exposed. What if you had reliable evidence against a terrorist suspect that didn't quite stand up to the standard demanded by a criminal court? Would you risk seeing him acquitted and freed to kill again?

Legal experts have proposed setting up special national security courts that would have more flexible rules of evidence and could view sensitive evidence in private. But civil libertarians would surely dismiss these as star-chamber proceedings that violated American values and law, leaving the same stain as Guantanamo.

The problems would pile up when the Obama administration found itself with new terrorist suspects, as it is bound to do as it steps up the war in Afghanistan. Without Guantanamo, what would it do with them? Some experts suggest creating a form of preventive detention, such as those that exist for child molesters. But how do you decide who is too dangerous to try or release? How, where and how long do you hold them? And is jailing them on, say, a military base in Omaha any better than a base in Cuba?

Mr. Obama is right to want to wipe out the taint of Guantanamo, ban torture and restore his country's reputation for fair play. But in a worldwide conflict against terrorism, it is always going to be tricky to balance protecting Americans with upholding the rule of law. Getting rid of Gitmo won't make it any easier.