I am going to say something I have not said as often as I would have liked: I agree with President Obama. Despite indications to the contrary – such as fighting me tooth and nail in court the past three years (and counting) over my firing by the Library of Congress for writing op-eds critical of his and President Bush's detainee policies – he apparently came to the same realization I had several years ago that, in his words, "we've got to close Guantánamo."

At a press conference on Tuesday, the president said that Guantánamo is unnecessary to keep America safe; it is expensive and inefficient; it diminishes the standing of the United States in the international community; it hampers cooperation with allies on counterterrorism efforts; and it serves as a recruitment tool for extremists. He is right on all counts. How, then, could anyone find an upside to perpetuating the Guantánamo fiasco?

Well, some see advantage in pandering to fear, particularly politicians on the far right of the ideological spectrum. They argue that anyone who would consider moving the "crazy bastards" out of Guantánamo and closing it is soft on terrorism. They are wrong: they are the ones who are soft … in the head and the spine. American law enforcement agencies, prison systems and judicial processes have proven themselves quite capable of dealing with "crazy bastards" of all types. They can handle a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It is time to stop wasting the taxpayers' money and squandering what credibility America has left keeping a folly afloat.

A majority of the men imprisoned at Guantánamo have been cleared by the Pentagon, Justice Department, FBI and CIA for transfer out of Guantánamo. They are men the US government determined committed no crimes and pose no genuine threat to America, yet many of them have spent more than a decade in detention because of their citizenship. The administration has ignored the detainees it cleared for transfer, the courts have abandoned them, and the public has forgotten they even exist (to the extent many members of the public ever paid attention). The fact that it takes men going on a hunger strike and placing their health and their lives in jeopardy for anyone to take notice is not something Americans should be proud of.

I was pleased to collaborate with Witness Against Torture, a group of dedicated activists who have refused to let the public forget that we are holding people in captivity at Guantánamo, on a petition created on change.org calling on the president to fulfil his 2008 campaign promise to close the detention facility. More than 100,000 people echoed that call and signed the petition within a matter of days, and their numbers continue to grow. This should get the attention of the White House.

President Obama was right: keeping Guantánamo open is not in the best interest of the American people and runs counter to the country's values. As he said on Tuesday:

"The idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried, that is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop."

So how does he make that happen? Here are some suggestions.

First, the 86 cleared detainees should be transferred out as soon as reasonably possible. The United States was in the process of repatriating Yemeni detainees when it was revealed that the Underwear Bomber's failed Christmas 2009 plot was hatched in Yemen, and the pipeline from Guantánamo was turned off. The Yemeni government has asked for the return of its citizens, which would account for most of the cleared group, and their request should be granted. But there are some who cannot go home, such as the Uighurs. The United States determined years ago that they were not a threat to America – they were training to fight the Chinese for independence – and tried to find other countries to take them. Palau, Albania and Bermuda did. Perhaps the United States should take some, too, or is the "home of the brave" just less brave than Bermuda?

Second, there are about 30 detainees the administration intended to prosecute. I once led the military commission prosecution effort, and perhaps the most charitable way to describe that is to say that military commissions have not been as swift, severe and secret as some had envisioned back in 2001. On the other hand, the federal courts have been effective in prosecuting hundreds of terrorism related cases over the same period. My suggestion would be to choose those who clearly warrant prosecution – prisoners like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – and take their cases to federal court. The military commission calamity has gone on long enough.

Third, and the most problematic, is the group of 50 or so (plus any of the 30 who do not clearly warrant prosecution in federal court) that fall in between: the indefinite detainees. The United States justifies indefinite detention by arguing that it has the right to detain enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict, but the "war" thread is beginning to wear thin. When the United States concludes combat operations in Afghanistan in 2014, the thread breaks. Those in this group should be assessed for either prosecution or transfer.

I understand the problems with the evidence – how it was obtained, where it was obtained, who gave it to the United States and promises made concerning its secrecy – but it has been at least six years since the last detainee reached Guantánamo. Some of the secrecy concerns should be getting stale; in any case, it is time to fish or cut bait. As the president said, imprisoning someone forever without trial is unacceptable.

It is almost inevitable that some of the 166 remaining Guantánamo detainees will end up doing something bad in the future and the spineless will scream in outrage (which, by the way, they don't over the tens of thousands killed by guns), but few risks can be cut to zero. It would help if some of what is spent each year now to keep the detention facility open is used instead to help the detainees adjust to life outside Guantánamo, rather than just turning them loose and hoping for a good outcome.

Guantánamo is, as the president said, a lingering problem that is going to get worse if it continues to fester, so he has to deal with it. If not now, when? If not him, whom?