The certification of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz as the Democratic nominees for President and Vice President represented many well-established firsts. One first was little acknowledged: Harris-Walz will be the first Democratic ticket in the post-9/11 era that did not vote for the invasion of Iraq. Their ascendance to the national stage could mark a turning point in our foreign policy that leaves behind the ugly legacy of the War on Terror. However, the voting record of our executives is not the only holdover from this period; to truly capture the hope and power of such a transition, the Harris-Walz administration must make substantive commitments to address the harms of the War on Terror, beginning with arguably the most famous symbol of human rights abuses committed in its name: the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp.
After 22 years, there have been many calls to close the detention camp. There are well-documented human rights abuses committed against many detainees – children and adults alike –the majority of whom have been found innocent of all crimes.[i] If this is not sufficient, families of detainees have questioned the fairness of the military commission trial process,[ii] and the exorbitant cost of the camp is unparalleled globally.[iii] This year, though, there is also a strong political justification for advocating to closing the detention camp at Guantanamo. At a moment when the relationship between Muslim Americans and the Democratic ticket seems tenuous, real commitments to address the harms done by the War on Terror have the potential to strengthen bonds and remind communities across the United States of some of the stakes of this election.
Guantanamo – Past and Present
In January 2002, the Bush Administration established the Guantanamo Bay detention facility for those deemed ‘enemy combatants’ in the war on terror.[iv] The site was outside the reach of the United States’ legal system while still being under the nation’s effective control given an existing naval base agreement between the United States and Cuba.[v] The Bush Administration labeled those detained in Guantanamo ‘unlawful combatants’ rather than prisoners of war, a term intentionally outside the bounds of the Geneva Convention,[vi] which sets a minimum standard for how prisoners of war should be treated and prohibits torture of those captured in combat.[vii] This determination was eventually challenged in court, allowing advocates and legal experts access to the prison, but not before President Bush openly admitted to approving the use of torture at the camp.
George Tenet asked if he had permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.… “Damn right,” I said.
—Former President George W. Bush, 2010[viii]
Since the camp’s creation, the United States has held almost 800 men and boys in Guantanamo Bay. The youngest detainee was thirteen years old.[ix] The majority of these detainees were held without trial for years. As of today, eight have been convicted for crimes by military commissions the ACLU describes as ‘illegitimate,’[x] and half of these convictions have already been overturned.[xi] Multiple Human Rights Watch reports have been written on the facilities, documenting the use of solitary confinement, forced feedings, and other “physical and psychological abuse[s].”[xii]
Guantanamo has become an international symbol of the crimes that the United States committed against the many Muslims they unjustly deemed ‘threats’ during the War on Terror. Reports on the prison, most recently in the New York Times podcast Serial, have cataloged systematic racism, anti-Muslim hate, and carelessness for Muslim life in the administration of the prison.[xiii]
In 2009, President Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay. Three major challenges stood in the administration’s way: major congressional opposition to moving detainees out of Guantanamo and having their detention and trial in the United States, diplomatic difficulty with extradition so detainees could face trial in their countries of origin, and risks to public perception.[xiv] Some have argued that the Obama Administration could have used additional executive power to close the prison but did not, given a fear of public backlash. Fourteen years later, thirty people remain in the camp, with the last mile to fully closing the facility feeling as far out of reach as ever.[xv]
On the campaign trail in 2016, President Trump claimed that he would reverse the Obama Administration’s Guantanamo, and fill it with additional prisoners. When asked if he would be against holding Americans in the prison, he suggested he would be more than comfortable with the idea of doing so, saying, “I want to make sure that if we have radical Islamic terrorists, we have a very safe place to keep them.”[xvi] Such references to potentially using Guantanamo to punish American citizens reignited fervor around closing the base for a period. Still, political challenges continued to stand in the way of real progress.
The Biden administration then re-committed to closing the detention camp. Despite this commitment, the administration’s plans to transfer eleven of the remaining thirty detainees were abruptly halted following the October 7 attacks in Israel, reportedly due to “political optics.”[xvii] Then, this past summer, Guantanamo was in the news again, with more challenges on the path to closure. The Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, vetoed a plea deal that would have removed the death penalty for three men accused of orchestrating the September 11th attacks in return for an admission of guilt and life in prison.[xviii] With this blow to the negotiation and resolution process, progress towards closing Guantanamo once again felt futile to many.
“For us, it raises very serious questions about continuing to engage in a system that seems so obviously corrupt and rigged,” – Walter Ruiz, the lawyer representing defendant Mustafa Al-Hawsawi, at a Guantanamo Hearing when discussing the move by Lloyd Austin to renege on the plea deal[xix]
Meaningful Engagement with Muslim Voters
In an election season where every message is critical, there is some risk in reminding voters of one of the country’s most well-documented human rights failures. Yet, in some communities, not recognizing these failures is worse – it contributes to an air of hypocrisy around the United States’ foreign policy priorities and its messages about protecting against authoritarians at home and abroad. The Muslim community is one such critical constituency, particularly given the immense strain that has been put on their relationship with the Democratic Party by the use of US weapons systems in the destruction of Gaza.
Until recently, many Arab and Muslim voters had stated they would unequivocally not be voting for the Democratic ticket. Many of these voters live in critical battleground states – most notably Michigan – but there are estimated to be more Muslim voters in Arizona and Georgia than Biden’s 2020 margin of victory in those states.[xx] The ascension of Kamala Harris to the ticket has helped mend this relationship and encouraged some Muslim voters to re-engage with the election[xxi] – the administration just earned the endorsement of a prominent Muslim advocacy group[xxii] – but the relationship remains tenuous. The latest polls show Muslim voters split between Jill Stein, a third-party candidate, and Vice President Harris.[xxiii]
In my discussions with Muslim voters this election season, this reticence has seemed to be about more than any single policy issue. It is about years of feeling as though the American political establishment does not see Muslim Americans as full citizens of this country, and does not see Muslims abroad as equals deserving of dignity and humane treatment. This perception began with the War on Terror in 2001, which included mass surveillance and criminalization of Muslim communities at home and abroad[xxiv] and culminated in President Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and Gaza policy.
It will not be enough for the Democratic Party to position itself as the ‘lesser of two evils’ if, at a fundamental level, Muslim communities in the United States do not feel that those at the top of the ticket respect them and are willing to protect them just like any other American citizen. Whether or not it is fair from a policy lens, this is the perception that many Muslims have of the party – a perception that must urgently be changed.
The Harris-Walz ticket’s policy on Israel and Palestine will be critical to this perception, but there is a broader history that also needs to be addressed. Having Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates that actively recognize the harm done during the War on Terror has the potential to begin an important reconciliation process with a critical block of voters. But these messages will ring hollow if we continue to operate a camp created to torture people – some of whom may look like these voters – outside the bounds of the US legal system.
Risks and Ongoing Challenges
The ACLU states that Guantanamo has become a “symbol of racial and religious injustice, abuse, and disregard for the rule of law.”[xxv] Given Harris’ brand as a prosecutor focused on justly applying the nation’s laws, a commitment to closing the base can fall neatly within her campaign’s message. The ideal outcome for the Harris-Walz ticket would be for President Biden to close the camp – or at least make meaningful progress towards doing so – by the end of his presidency. With this said, the Harris campaign can also choose to make its own promises if it does not see the necessary progress from within the Biden Administration.
The primary risk to resurfacing such a campaign promise is that it will make Harris look ‘soft’ on terrorism with more hawkish constituencies. Though this is likely less of a risk than it was in the Obama administration – the percentage of Americans opposed to closing the detention camp has substantially declined since the Obama years – it may remain a political consideration.[xxvi]
Two messages can address this challenge. The first is the testimony of families affected by 9/11 who have spoken out against practices at Guantanamo Bay. Given the inherently flawed nature of the military commission trial process and the multiple mistrials the process has seen, both experts and victims’ families have argued that the process is not providing justice to victims and families.[xxvii] The Pentagon-led system is known to treat the families of 9/11 victims differently from one another – for example, it was reported that families who supported the military commission’s process were invited to attend the hearings, while families that had publicly criticized the commissions were not.[xxviii] In addition, the consistent discussions and public discourse around Guantanamo disallow these families from moving forward from 9/11 – closing this chapter and moving forward may allow them to better heal. Many victims have said this is not possible in the context of a military commission that has been publicly linked to the CIA’s torture tactics.[xxix] Though there are sure to be families of victims that fall on both sides of such a policy debate, showing that there is indeed a debate on this issue will complicate the pro-Guantanamo narratives that imply all families of victims are in favor of the camp and its practices.
“The reason there has been no justice and accountability in the 9/11 cases…is torture… The impending 22nd anniversary of our loved ones’ deaths is a truly fitting occasion to end the failed 9/11 military commission. ” –Terry Rockefeller, brother of a 9/11 victim[xxx]
The second message is one focused on cost. Guantanamo is the most expensive detention facility in the world – a report from 2019 estimates an average cost of more than $13 million per prisoner.[xxxi] In contrast, the New York Times reported that Germany’s Spandau Prison, which housed the single most dangerous Nazi war criminal, cost about $1.5 million for that single prisoner in today’s dollars.[xxxii] With a cumulative spend of more than $400 million a year, these resources are a misuse of US taxpayer dollars and can be re-allocated to affordable housing, education, or other infrastructural investment to meet the needs of the American people if detainees are moved into US prisons or to partner countries. With Guantanamo, the Harris-Walz administration has the opportunity not just to end a major injustice but also to make progress toward a more just and equal vision for the future for all Americans.
What comes next
The Harris campaign should move quickly, engaging its surrogates in Muslim communities to speak with conviction on the role the administration is willing to play in moving past the legacy of the War on Terror. At the same time, they should not shy away from making public statements that explicitly draw a contrast with the Trump Administration’s express intent to use the base and its history to fearmonger in Muslim American communities. As such messages are communicated, the campaign must also develop a policy plan that makes clear there is substance behind these words, setting itself apart from past administrations that have been unable to get the job done.
Closing Guantanamo has shown itself to be a difficult task over the years. Many administrations have tried and failed to close this chapter in American history. But in this moment, when the Democratic Party is looking to the future, we cannot afford to bury our past. We will only be able to truly move forward towards the goal of a just and inclusive future for all Americans when we address the past and repair the damage that has been done.
[i] Guantánamo by the Numbers (no date) American Civil Liberties Union. (Accessed: 5 December 2023).
[ii] 9/11 victims’ Families Challenge Legitimacy of guantánamo military commissions. (2008, December 9) American Civil Liberties Union. (Accessed: 8 September 2024)
[iii] Rosenberg, C. (2019) ‘The Cost of Running Guantánamo Bay: $13 Million Per Prisoner’, The New York Times, 16 September. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
[iv] Guantánamo Bay: over 20 years of injustice (no date). (Accessed: 5 December 2023).
[v] Guantanamo Bay: Twenty Years of Counterterrorism and Controversy (no date) Council on Foreign Relations. (Accessed: 5 December 2023).
[vi] Ibid
[vii] Prisoners of war and detainees (2014) International Committee of the Red Cross. (Accessed: 10 December 2023).
[viii] Bush, George W.‘Decision Points’ (New York: Crown Publishers, 2010), p. 170.
[ix] ‘Guantánamo by the Numbers’ (no date) American Civil Liberties Union. (Accessed: 5 December 2023).
[x] Ibid.
[xi] ‘Dropped Charges, Overturned Convictions, and Delayed Trials in Guantanamo Military Commissions’ (no date) Human Rights First. Available at: https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/dropped-charges-overturned-convictions-and-delayed-trials-in-guantanamo-military-commissions/ (Accessed: 11 December 2023).
[xii] ‘Locked Up Alone’ (2008) Human Rights Watch [Preprint]. (Accessed: 5 December 2023).
[xiii] Koenig, Sarah (2024) ‘Guantanamo’ Serial, Audible, (Accessed: June 2024).
[xiv] ‘Biden Administration Approves 5 More Guantánamo Releases’ The New York Times. (Accessed: 5 December 2023).
[xv] Rosenberg, C. (2023) ‘Pentagon’s Repatriation of Algerian Leaves 30 Prisoners at Guantánamo’, The New York Times, 20 April. (Accessed: 10 December 2023).
[xvi] ‘Trump Says Americans Could Be Tried, Held in Guantanamo’ ABC News. (Accessed: 8 September 2024).
[xvii] Cube, Courtney and Lee, Carol (2024) ‘The U.S. was set to move 11 detainees out of Guantanamo. Then Hamas attacked Israel.’ NBC News. (Accessed: 10 August 2024)
[xviii] Rosenberg, Carol (2024) ‘Defense Secretary Revokes Plea Deal for Accused Sept. 11 Plotters’ The New York Times. (Accessed: 10 August 2024).
[xix] Britzky, Haley (2024) ‘Attorneys say Austin violated military rules in halting deal for alleged 9/11 conspirators’ CNN (Accessed: 10 August 2024)
[xx] Seitz-Wald Alex (2023) ‘Swing-state Muslim Americans threaten to vote against Biden’ NBC News (Accessed: 10 August 2024)
[xxi] Cappalletti, Joey (2024) ‘Harris quickly pivots to convincing Arab American voters of her leadership’ Associated Press (Accessed: 11 August 2024)
[xxii] Cappelletti, J. (2024, September 25). Top Muslim-voter organization endorses Harris as Middle East conflict escalates. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/kamala-harris-emgage-muslims-endorsement-gaza-israel-trump-campaign-biden-ad30de2fc83a7fd4f65190c0f3d1a6da
[xxiii] Reilly, A. (2024b, September 9). Stein leads Harris among Muslim voters in several swing states, new analysis finds. GBH. https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2024-09-09/stein-leads-harris-among-muslim-voters-in-several-swing-states-new-analysis-finds
[xxiv] Patel, F. (2021, July 22). ‘Ending the “national security” excuse for racial and religious profiling.’ Brennan Center for Justice.
[xxv] Shamsi, H. (2022) ‘20 Years Later, Guantánamo Remains a Disgraceful Stain on Our Nation. It Needs to End. | ACLU’, American Civil Liberties Union, 11 January. (Accessed: 5 December 2023).
[xxvi] Roehm, Scott (2022) ‘Biden’s Guantanamo Politics are not Obama’s’ Just Security, 2 February. (Accessed: 11 August 2024)
[xxvii] Shamsi, H. (2022) ‘20 Years Later, Guantánamo Remains a Disgraceful Stain on Our Nation. It Needs to End. | ACLU’, American Civil Liberties Union, 11 January. (Accessed: 5 December 2023).
[xxviii] ‘9/11 Victims Deserve Better than Guantanamo | Human Rights Watch’ (2008), 5 June. (Accessed: 5 December 2023).
[xxix] ‘The Failed Military Commissions.’ Center for Victims of Torture. Updated 2024, May 15. (Accessed: 13 September 2024).
[xxx] Rockefeller, T. (2023) 9/11 Family Members Can Get Answers through Plea Agreements, Not a Trial, Just Security. (Accessed: 5 December 2023).
[xxxi] Rosenberg, C. (2019) ‘The Cost of Running Guantánamo Bay: $13 Million Per Prisoner’, The New York Times, 16 September. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
[xxxii] Ibid.