Repubs to Close Guantanamo Bay

Some Republicans are joining the voices shouting for Guantanmo Bay to be closed after 3 years of neglible results in the War on Terror and increasing claims of abuse. Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) is the first to join:

"It's become an icon for bad stories and at some point you wonder the cost-benefit ratio," Martinez said Friday. "How much do you get out of having that facility there? Is it serving all the purposes you thought it would serve when initially you began it, or can this be done some other way a little better?"

Martinez, who served in President Bush's first cabinet and is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made his comments after Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden suggested earlier in the week that the prison in Cuba be shut down.

It should be noted that apparently the only way for these issues to make sense for certain population is through an economic perspective. Martinez does not invoke the poor intelligence gleaned from the detainment center; the increasing claims of abuse; the clear human rights complaints that come with detaining people for over 3 years without any charges or recourse; or the fact that, of those detained, up to 10 percent have no connection to terrorist organizations [this number is very conservative by some estimates].

None of this matters to Martinez- it is always going to be a "cost-benefit" analysis. While we laud Martinez' attempt at a reasonable position, and certainly accept his desire to consider the closure, the reason we want Guantanamo Bay closed is because it is a devastating statement by the US against accepted international human rights agreements. The "Cost" of the camp is far greater than a simple analysis will yield.

In a related note: The Legal War on Terror, of which the PATRIOT Act is a key feature, results in very few convictions. Should we authorize a cost-benifit analysis of the patriot act in order to see that the drastic provisions contained within it haven't gotten all that much done?