The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Guantanamo Bay Detention Center Should Be Shut Down.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2010 Category: News
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,014 times Debate No: 11179
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




I want to thank the person who accepts this debate. I wish to keep it short, sweet, and to the point.
1. Guantanamo Bay- a detainment facility of the United States located in Cuba. The facility is operated by Joint Task Force Guantanamo of the United States government since 2002 in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which is on the shore of Guantanamo Bay.

2. Unconstitutional- not allowed by or against the principles set down in a constitution, especially a nation's written constitution

3. Terrorist- somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate others, often for political purposes

On the day of Tuesday, February 1, 2005, a US Federal judge ruled that military tribunals for international terrorist at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp were unconstitutional. The Bush Administration, who created the tribunals stated......

""We respectfully disagree with the decision,"
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan
Many of the detainees attorney's mentioned that the ruling was a "smashing defeat for the Bush Administration."
There has been proof of torture against the the detainees.(

I want to thank the person who accepts this debate. Thank you.



Being brief is always a tremendous challenge for me, but I'll do my best. Thanks to my opponent for the opportunity.

I accept Pro's definitions, excepting the definition of terrorist. A terrorist does not merely "uses violence" for political purposes, but "uses violence against civilians" for the purpose of winning political objectives through intimidation.

Pro's sole argument is the Supreme Court decision of 2005 that ruled the military tribunal system planned for use at Guantanamo (GITMO) was unconstitutional. I content:

1. Whether the terrorists are given trials by military tribunal or civilian courts is irrelevant to shutting down GITMO. GITMO is open today and the Obama Administration is proposing trying some terrorists in civilian courts in the US.

2. Taxpayers paid $200 million to construct a modern prison at GITMO. It works fine, and the investment should be used to continue to hold prisoners. This avoids the expense of preparing new facilities to hold them.

3. GITMO keeps terrorists isolated from domestic criminal populations. If intermixed, they will preach jihadism and successfully recruit new terrorists. Intermixing terrorists could be potentially avoided, but at best at substantial expense and only if legal challenges to their special treatment were overcome.

4. The Supremes invalidated the system of military tribunals that was then in place in 2005. .In 2007 Congress enacted a new system of military tribunals to meet the Court's objections. The legislation was adopted on a bipartisan basis. The system was further revised by the Military Commissions Act of 2009, which President Obama endorsed and signed. and the Obama Administration plans to use the new system of military tribunals to try 200 detainees. Military tribunals could be used either at GITMO or in the US. A civilian trial in New York City is expected to entail $200 million per year for four years in increased security costs. There would be no added security costs to having trials in GITMO. Keeping GITMO open preserves that option.

5. If terrorist detainees are brought to the United States, there is a risk that the Supreme Court could extend additional rights to them which would cause them to ultimately be released. So far, the Court has only extend rights of habeus corpus to GITMO detainees. Detainees might for example, get the right to know the names and sources of confidential information, whose identities, once known, would cause their deaths. President Obama acknowledged this risk, saying ""It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize" to balance an adherence to a rule of law without "releasing people intent on blowing us up."

6. Finally, the detainees if GITMO is closed the detainees must be put somewhere in the U.S. No matter where they are put, there will be significant objections by the local populace that terrorist allies of the detainees will try to free them. Raising that issue is an unnecessary distraction to the Administration at a time when there are many other things to worry about.

In summary, Pro's argument is wrong because closing GITMO and using military tribunals for trials are completely separate issues, and in any case the current system of military tribunals has not been ruled invalid and is planned for use to try 200 detainees. Keeping GITMO open saves at least $200 million in facility construction costs, could save $800 million in trial security costs, avoids security risks within US prisons, and avoids the risk of having to let terrorists free.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1


True2GaGa forfeited this round.


All of my points stand unrefuted. Military tribunals are constitutional, the Supreme Court's objections having been met by bipartisan legislation endorsed and signed by President Obama. The Administration intends to try 200 terrorists by military tribunal. Those trials could be held at GITMO or elsewhere. Keeping GITMO open and using it to detain terrorists saves taxpayers at least $200 million and solves many problems.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
Lol, gaga tied conduct when she forfeited, gave herself sources when Roy posted more than her and gave herself convincing arguments when Roys stood unrefuted.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
that was close, gaga almost won but both votebombed, sooo
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
That's odd. I saw that you had accepted the debate 2 minutes ago, then clicked on it and you had already written your argument. I probably misread it.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
Kinesis, At my age, I don't get much of anything done in two minutes. It took me about an hour to write the argument.

It's a good topic. A commentator on CNN made an argument similar to Pro's, and the CNN anchor did not respond.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Bloody hell. It took you 2 minutes to write that argument, Roy.
Posted by True2GaGa 6 years ago
Good Luck!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by True2GaGa 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06