Interesting British editorial on closing Gitmo

I'm always interested in how other countries perceive the U.S. Of course, our reputation has plummeted under the Bush administration. But Great Britain has been one of our staunchest allies, for the most part, especially while Tony Blair was Prime Minister.

Therefore, I was particularly interested in the leading editorial in the January 4th edition of the British newspaper The Independent regarding closure of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay. The editorial makes some very good points -- ones that should be obvious, but sadly are not. And it shows that Great Britain, like the rest of the world, can't wait for Obama to take the oath.

Some excerpts:

Guantanamo has become shorthand for giving the rule of law short shrift and riding roughshod over the Geneva Convention. It has also become associated with practices incompatible with civilised values. Its very location was a means of circumventing protections afforded by the US constitution. And the use of torture – the only honest description of the simulated drowning known as waterboarding – to extract testimony from prisoners would unquestionably be condemned by the US were it practised in other countries. Closing Guantanamo would represent a commitment to the rule of law.

It should also be a signal that the "war on terror" is not an end that justifies any means.

[...]

Barack Obama has raised almost impossible hopes, and one of them has been for a new kind of world order in which the rule of law will hold, in which there is some congruence between US rhetoric and US actions, in which America can be an exemplar of respect for the rights of individuals. Closing Guantanamo is just the start of that wider endeavour, and it should have Britain's wholehearted support.

This country's tacit acceptance of "extraordinary rendition" by the US was a sin of omission at the very least. The lack of curiosity shown by senior ministers about the provenance of much US intelligence will surely return to haunt them.

Finally, the article addresses the issue of what to do with prisoners released/transferred from Gitmo:

In any event, what needs to be questioned seriously is just why it is unsafe for detainees to be returned to their own countries. Do we have to accept as a fact of life in this new world order that prisoners are routinely tortured in detention? Yemen has accepted Osama bin Laden's driver, to serve his sentence at home.

The US does have considerable political and economic clout in the region, and under the new administration it will have more. It could use that influence to ensure that prisoners returned to their home countries will not be abused in detention or on release. Otherwise, it should provide ex-detainees with a home, protection and an identity for themselves and their families in the US; that is the minimum price America must pay for Guantanamo.

Indeed. My taxes were spent on torture. It is only fair that they should now be spent on retribution.

>> Read the full editorial.