Closing prison may be detrimental

The terrorist-detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has received a lot of attention since its opening, much of it inaccurate and unsubstantiated. It was the subject of a recent editorial on these pages which encouraged a reasoned debate on the issue.

I have just returned from a visit to Guantanamo and would like to address some of the issues frequently raised by its critics.

President Obama has issued an executive order requiring a comprehensive review and reassessment of the legal precedents and protocols for holding, interrogating and legally processing enemy combatants held by the United States.

The president's directive means that within a year, all the detainees currently held at Guantanamo could be transferred to other detention facilities within the United States, released from United States custody to their home nations or moved to prisons in foreign nations that may not adhere to our high standards of care and conduct.

We are at a critical juncture in the global war against Islamic extremists as our troops draw down in Iraq and gear up for what may be a much longer and tougher struggle in Afghanistan.

These strategic shifts demand a clear-eyed discussion of the legal processes applicable to those we capture on the battlefield, the practical implications any changes will have in our intelligence community and the potential national-security risks posed by detainees being released or moved to countries that lack the political will to hold these dangerous individuals.

Just last month, our government confirmed that Said Ali al-Shihri, a Saudi citizen detained by the United States until 2007, has become a deputy leader of the Yemeni branch of al-Qaida and is suspected of plotting the recent deadly attack on the U.S. embassy in Sana, Yemen. Al-Shihri also has appeared on a propaganda video with a man identified as Abu Hareth Muhammad al-Awfi, another former detainee released from U.S. custody. Also, many countries don't want to take the detainees back.

It is interesting to note that currently there are a large number of Yemenis being held at Guantanamo, but the Yemeni government has so far shown no interest in taking custody of those who may be deemed suitable for release from our custody.

Despite emotionally charged labels like "American gulag" and "torture chamber," our facility at Guantanamo is regularly visited and inspected by the International Committee of the Red Cross and is comparable to a modern domestic prison in design and procedure. Intelligence professionals at Guantanamo routinely question detainees in a controlled environment under strict guidelines in an attempt to gather information on what American military forces are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some critics contend that the information being disclosed by the current detainee population at Guantanamo is outdated and irrelevant to continuing operations. This view ignores the fact that detainees continue to possess and even obtain substantive information and continue to aid the intelligence community in developing a picture of who or what we may encounter on the battlefield. In fact, Leon Panetta, President Obama's nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, acknowledged the complexity of today's battlefield where human intelligence is the CIA's most urgent and primary mission and he reaffirmed that the president retains broad power to authorize actions to seek vital information that may save American lives. We must understand that whether it is Guantanamo or another location, our intelligence community must continue to garner intelligence from those detained on the battlefield.

The arguments against relocating large numbers of these detainees to other nations or to various locations within the United States are sources of justifiable anxiety here and abroad. Many well-intentioned but misinformed critics would have us rush to close the detention facility, but before there can be any releases or the outright closure of the facility, a viable alternative to Guantanamo must be found. I welcome a healthy debate and discussion about the merits and risks of such action. Quick and speedy solutions to this complex problem may help the conscience of a vocal opposition in the short run, but they could have very troublesome consequences for our national security in the years to come.

As a nation, we should always do what's best for our national interests rather than bow to the whims of an international chattering class that might not have all the facts.

■ Richard Burr of Winston-Salem represents North Carolina in the U.S. Senate.