Guantanamo Bay Chief Prosecutor defends military commissions

The Yale Law Journal - In Defense of Guantanamo Bay

There's an article in the Yale Law Journal on Guantanamo Bay written by the Chief Prosecutor, Col Morris David, which is interesting reading on its own terms and as a rare example of its type: when was the last time you saw a pro-Guantanamo piece? I have always thought the problem with Guantanamo was more about presentation than substance. So this part off the article rang home with me:

Am I ashamed of the picture I see of Guantanamo Bay and the military commissions? Absolutely not. There are those who want to sell a false and ugly picture of the facilities and the process, and they have been very successful in manipulating public opinion while we on the other side have been largely ineffective. If they continue to succeed in generating a false sense of collective shame, then perhaps public pressure will become so great that the political process will bend and cause a change of course. In my opinion, that would be unfortunate and unnecessary. Even some of the most vocal critics claim they are not soft on terrorism and do not want to set terrorists free, but they believe Guantanamo Bay and military commissions have become such liabilities that we need to look for other alternatives. Perhaps if we do a better job of educating the public about the truth, we will demonstrate that there is nothing wrong with the alternatives currently in use. We have a good story to tell, and we should not be ashamed to tell it. I see in Guantanamo a clean, safe, and humane facility to detain enemy combatants and a fair process to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of those alleged to have committed crimes defined by Congress and the laws of war.

Clearly the legal issues surrounding the Guantanamo Bay camp are complex. I'd put myself in the camp of those who think whatever the legality Guantanamo has become a massive liability. (I wonder if just constituting field tribunals of two captains and a major in the field and shooting those judged unlawful combatants would have caused less damage. Bad public diplomacy to be sure; but straightforward, cheap and legal.) That being the case, either the facility is shut down or something is done to push back on the the popular perception of it. The article in question seems an attempt to do that. Too little too late?