Without territory, it does not even have the resources to provide detention facilities for prisoners, even if it were interested in holding captured POWs.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There is nothing more foreign to a civilised and democratic system than preventive detention.
What made Guantanamo such a travesty - and what still makes it such - is that it is a system of indefinite detention whereby human beings are put in cages for years and years without ever being charged with a crime.
Many of the vicious criminals held there have been caught on the battlefield fighting against American troops and shutting down Guantanamo Bay would just require the military to move them elsewhere.
Federal authorities do not have the manpower or the resources to protect America's international borders.
Guantanamo Bay is a facility that I think should be utilized by the United States for detainees, say, out of Syria.
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few - the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
Second, the facility at Guantanamo Bay is necessary to national security.
In my heart of hearts, I don't think it's a good position to say that Guantanamo is not an acceptable answer for anyone we might capture now or in the future.
The great difficulty with Guantanamo is it was perceived correctly as being a place where people were not being detained subject to rules. I don't think the world thinks that you can't detain suspected terrorists - the world thinks you can do that, but you have to do it pursuant to rules and to clear charges.
A military presence does not need to be used to be useful.