Griggs 1

Tristan Griggs

Mrs. Bastian

Philosophy

22 March 2017

Guantanamo Bay: A Constitutional Establishment?

Political officials today find themselves in a heated debate as to whether or not

Guantanamo Bay, an infamous military prison in Cuba, should be closed due to its alleged

mistreatment of the detainees it houses. For years, the institutions harsh interrogation methods

have been under scrutiny, and it seems the time for the United States to rule on the

constitutionality of its actions is fast-approaching. Administrators seem fairly deadlocked on the

issue, with some declaring the prisons wartime acts as lawful and necessary, while still others

argue them to be cruel and unusual. Because of this, no official action has been taken as of yet.

Most likely to agree with the latter point of view is political philosopher John Locke, who

believed that the protection of an individuals natural rights should take priority over all other

things. He would state that any U.S. facility which subjects its prisoners (who, though they are

prisoners, are still human) to tortures such as starvation and random, unwarranted beatings

should be discarded immediately, as it directly contradicts the values of a just society. On the

opposite side of the conflict would be Thomas Hobbes, who believed that the main function of

any society should be to protect its citizens. He would argue that Guantanamo Bays methods of

interrogation may be necessary to obtain information crucial to the safeguarding of the American

people, and that, as this is the governments main imperative, the institution should remain open.

The most obscure view of the situation would be that which is had by philosopher Jean Jacque
 Griggs 2

Rousseau. Seeing as how he held the belief that all humans are basically good, he may be likely

to insist that political detainees, as humans, deserve some amount of mercy as a natural given,

and state that Guantanamo Bay must be closed in the interest of accounting for innate virtue.

Conversely though, he may refuse to give any direct answer at all attributed to only his personal

opinion. A proponent of direct democracy, he may see it as most fit for the people as a whole to

vote on the constitutionality of Guantanamo Bay, rather than depending on the viewpoint of just

one individual.

Personally, I agree with John Lockes position the most on this issue, but in an ideal

society, I think it is Rousseaus way of doing things that would allow the most effective solution

to the problem in the end. Although Id be tempted to stop the mistreatment of any detained

individuals immediately (just on the basis of morality), I understand that people need to feel

heard in order to be satisfied with their way of living, and no decision concerning the

treatment/interrogation of possible terrorists should be decided without the consultation of the

American people. I think it would be best to hold a vote on the matter and and work with the

public opinion as effectively as possible to come to a conclusion.