Leading article: President Obama must end the scandal of Guantanamo

Some things are easier said than done, among them the closure of the infamous prison at Guantanamo Bay, that has done so much to besmirch the reputation of the US around the world. There is scant doubt that President Bush was sincere in saying on several occasions over the last few years that he wanted to have done with the place. But his administration soon discovered the practical problems that closure would raise, and concluded that it could not do it. President-elect Barack Obama, however, says he will – and he must, as one of his first acts when he takes office in nine weeks' time.

Currently about 250 terrorist suspects are held at the prison. Of them about 50 have been cleared for release but would face persecution if sent home to their countries of origin, and the US has found no one else willing to take them. A similar number may be genuine terrorists. The rest probably fall into a grey area – suspects picked up on or around the battlefield, sometimes in murky circumstances, against whom the evidence is unclear.

Related articles

• Obama backs £33bn loans for car industry
• Handover turns ugly as car industry bailout row flares
• Don't blame Palin, says McCain
• War on touts over hottest ticket in town
• Mark Steel: The losers who hate to love Obama
• Search the news archive for more stories

During the campaign Mr Obama called Guantanamo a "sad chapter in American history," noting that the military tribunals – in effect kangaroo courts – set up by the Bush administration have not worked. Indeed some military prosecutors have even resigned in protest at the system. His advisers are now working on a plan whereby the detainees would be transferred to the US. Some would be released, others given open trials in existing civilian courts, while special courts would be set up to handle the most sensitive cases.

The proposal is generally supported by legal experts. But objections have been raised at both ends of the political spectrum. Many Republicans say terrorist suspects cannot be brought to the US mainland. Liberal Democrats on the other hand insist there is no need for a new type of court, that the existing legal system can do the job. Neither argument withstands scrutiny.

Maximum security prisons on the US mainland are at least as secure as Guantanamo, and it is absurd to suggest that the terrorists' presence on American soil would endanger the ordinary population. Plainly, however, not every suspect can be tried in ordinary open court.

Take for instance Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the organisers of 9/11. He has been subjected to forcible interrogation, including waterboarding, deemed torture by almost everyone except the Bush White House. Much of the evidence against him might be thrown out by an ordinary court. If witnesses like CIA agents and terrorist collaborators were forced to take the stand, US national security might genuinely be compromised. But it is unimaginable that he be set free. Some kind of hybrid, even paramilitary court in the US is the obvious solution.

As for those who have been cleared for release, perhaps some of the European governments which have been so critical of Guantanamo might accept them. The remainder should be tried in civilian courts. Some dangerous individuals may be acquitted. But such things occur in every category of violent crime, not merely terrorism.

Guantanamo Bay may be a sad chapter, but its closure is a complicated matter nonetheless; no magic wand will alter that fact. Nothing however would do as much to assure the world that the US is under new management. Mr Obama will enjoy a political honeymoon as few incoming presidents have. And what are political honeymoons for – if not for awkward decisions to be taken?