Naturally, this decision provoked some mixed emotions: anger from some conservative personalities and admiration from some European countries.

I applaud this action. The inhumane actions from our country toward these prisoners have given the U.S. a stained reputation.

Torturous operations such as sleep deprivation, exposure and waterboarding have been performed on the suspects.

Aside from torture, the suspects are being held without trial, something American citizens take for granted.

Many will say these prisoners don’t deserve such rights because of their actions. However, on June 12, 2008, a 5-4 decision in the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Gitmo prisoners have rights to challenge their charges in civilian courts as protected by the U.S. Constitution.

This should not anger anyone, although I’m sure it will.

If the U.S. is the “land of the free and the home of the brave,” as Francis Scott Key wrote, we need to honor our own policies.

Yes, they’re prisoners and possibly guilty of horrendous acts, but they are under our jurisdiction.

Some of these suspects have been forced to fight against their will. Although they have been deemed terrorists because of the organizations they were affiliated with, they are not necessarily guilty.

We must be brave enough to function under our policies stated in the Constitution.

Since the order was established, Obama and his administration are at a standstill of what to do with the prisoners — something that has vexed Washington for years. Since they no longer can be kept in Gitmo, alternative locations must be established. But where?

On Obama’s trip to Europe, Nicholas Sarkozy, president of France, said Friday that France would be willing to accept one of the Gitmo prisoners as a symbolic gesture because of Sarkozy’s disapproval of the camp.

Sarkozy said that he would be willing to carry out this gesture if Obama holds through on his promise to close the camp.

France seems to be the first country to accept this responsibility. Many other European countries are giving the impression of cold feet in accepting such a task.

Despise France if you wish for whatever you dislike about them, but it seems to be proving its willingness to form a stronger bond with the U.S.

If no other countries volunteer to accept some of our detainees, political leaders will be back to square one.

So far, only a few suggestions have been established, one of which includes reopening the federal prison at Alcatraz Island.

Fox News talk show host and conservative political commentator Glenn Beck favored this in January, shortly after the closing order was made.

But Beck’s support of this idea seem to be a bit skewed. The only reason he seems to be favoring this is because Alcatraz is within reasonable distance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s — an enemy in his eyes — home.

If Alcatraz becomes a definite possibility, what does this accomplish?

With the actions that are going on at Gitmo now, simply changing the location will not have any effect. The administrators of the camp will be just as tempted to perform torture techniques.

An alternative possibility consists of scattering the prisoners among the nation by placing them in maximum security facilities.

This, by far, is the best option. By separating the prisoners and giving them fair trials, the nation can hold on to what little reputation we have left in the eyes of foreign countries.

Yes, these prisoners have caused turmoil on American and foreign soil, but they are still humans, and some of them have been forced to fight for radical organizations against their will.

Nick Krizinski is a State News staff writer. Reach him at krizinsk@msu.edu.