GITMO, THE AMERICAN GULAG - DEVALUES U$ JUSTICE

 

By

Joseph Chez

 

February 15, 2013

Consider if you will what the consequences would be for the nation and to the rest of the world, if US currency would only have the assigned monetary value, only within its borders and only have value for American citizens? Certainly, such scenario would be inconceivable at best, because, such policy would make the American monetary system unworkable in a global symbiosis. Better yet, this make-believe portrayal could only be considered as appropriate by foolish individuals having a deficit-understanding of the profound consequences such policy would have, domestically or internationally, right?  Yet, that is exactly what the Bush Administration implemented immediately after the 9-11 terrorists attack on US soil.  However, the policy devaluation scheme was not done with the US dollar – it was done with the judicial system. 

The American judicial system, although not perfect, was designed to strive to reach the highest ideals and standards of the rule of law. In theory, as originally envisioned, the American judicial system was to become a beacon to the world and guarantor of civil liberties to all its citizens, or anyone within its jurisdiction.  Therefore, just like the American dollar, if the American people expect its currency to have the full faith and credit of their government, at home or internationally, in-like circumstances, such premise must also apply to its judicial system. 

However, the question must be asked, why did the United States of America decided to house presumed culprits of 9-11 outside its borders and to this day, has kept them imprisoned at a concentration detention camp at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base – in Cuba?

 After 9-11, the national discussion turned - not on self-reflection, why it happened or what we as a nation did to deserve it?  Instead, President Bush, standing on the rubble of the twin towers, took to the bullhorn and promised - not that the perpetrators would be brought to justice, but that justice would come to them.  Semantics aside, it is clear that the Bush Administration desired affect was to punish the presumed perpetrators, but not render justice under a US court of law.

 In fact, at the height of the aftermath of 9-11, the collective anger focused on profiling the would-be culprits, namely Muslims – from anywhere. This is because US intelligence did not have a clue as to which group or country was the source of the malevolent act against the US.  Thus, it is noteworthy to remind ourselves that we “shocked and awed” the world on March 19, 2003 when the US attacked Iraq, a nation that had no connection in the 9-11 attack. And yet, the mastermind of 9-11, Osama Bin Laden, finally took credit for the attack in 2004.  But, never mind the small details; the US Government under the Bush Administration dredged the Middle East with a wide net and captured hundreds of suspected terrorists.  And just as the facts for justifying a war against Iraq were sketchy, so was the basis on which the US Government rounded off suspected terrorists.   In most cases, suspects were turned in by anonymous individuals who were paid a handsome dollar amount for deliverance of would-be terrorist.  In more regrettable cases, names of presumed terrorist were expunged from captured individuals, while under the extreme duress of torture. No need to mention rendition…!

The rule of law notwithstanding, the Bush Administration based its approach to the 9-11 pay-back by establishing The War on Terror: wanted, capture them and hang them. Never mind the legal system or international norms, when the country was in a hanging mood and was even receptive to eroding Constitutional protections for its own citizens.   Accordingly, the Bush administration came up with extra-judicial measures to simply avoid the reach of US law. Thus, in order to circumvent jurisdiction of US courts, the Bush Administration framed the argument that captured terrorists did not deserve due process under US law as that should only apply to US citizens. 

 Originally, captured 9-11 suspects were housed at various countries (CIA black sites) for reasons of enhanced interrogations – until, there was international condemnation which questioned the legality of such detention methods. In response the Bush Administration opened a detention camp at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (GITMO) in Cuba, to house the 9-11 presumed guilty. Why Guantanamo? Simply, because the Bush Administration and the conservative wing of the country clamored that US law was meant for American citizens only.  However, they assumed right, that if detainees were to be brought to the mainland, US courts’ jurisdiction would unquestionably apply. There was also the fear that if tried under the full protection of the law, perhaps, the evidence for detention would be so sketchy – that they would be set free.

 Further framing the argument that 9-11 detainees were not privileged to be tried under US courts, the Bush Administration held that these individuals were simply not covered under the Geneva Convention rules of war because they were terrorists and not soldiers of any recognized country or government.  The Bush Administration thus labeled the detainees, “enemy combatants” in reference to being considered unlawful combatants.

At first, detainees at GITMO were imprisoned incommunicado, held without charge, tried or convicted.  That’s because the Bush Administration was not interested in providing due process.  Instead, the neo-con cadre at the White House asserted that the courts did not have jurisdiction over the detainees.  Moreover, the country was in no mood to recite Miranda Rights in a time of war.  Soon however, few brave progressives began to stick out their necks to defend human rights and the rule of law.  It was obvious to many liberals, that civil liberties were taking a hit under the Patriot Act, conveniently veiled as part of national security.  But, as court challenges reached the Supreme Court, in Rasul v. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court held that indeed, US courts did have jurisdiction over 9-11 detainees.  Still, the Bush Administration agreed to provide a semblance of judicial process; however, it would not be under a civilian court of law or have the legal mechanisms necessary to successfully challenge their detention.  This gave way for the creation of “Combatant Status Review Tribunals, a sort of administrative hearings conducted under the Pentagon’s military judicial umbrella.  However, the “hubris” after 9-11 was so extreme, that Congress conceded to every assertion from the Bush Administration, so in 2005, legislation, the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) was passed and it stripped US courts from any statutory jurisdiction over detainee legal challenges.  Further, it limited the appeals process, and allowed for the formation of a quasi-legal system under military commissions.  In essence, this allowed the Bush Administration to deny Guantanamo detainees the full protection of US law.

In 2006, when the US Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld attempted to re-impose jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions, Congress once again put in place further restrictions for detainees by enacting the Military Commissions Act of 2006, thus amending its previous Detainee Act and giving the Bush Administration further latitude in the formation of military commissions.  The new legislation also limited detainees from having access to federal courts. In sum, the Bush Administration succeeded in minimizing the value or jurisdiction of American jurisprudence over anyone suspected being a terrorist, but more specifically, for those already under detention at GITMO.

It is noteworthy to mention that in 2008, the Supreme Court finally held in Boumedene v. Bush, that “alien enemy combatants” and Guantanamo detainees did have a constitutional right to a habeas petition from a federal court.  And yet, very few detainees at Guantanamo have been tried to this day – for fear that whether under a military commission or under the scrutiny of a civilian court, few would be found guilty.

As the American public became war-weary and hostile against government privacy intrusion, coupled with international skepticism of US moral direction, it was clear the nation needed change.  Consequently, Sen. Barack Obama became president in January 20, 2009 as he promised to restore the moral compass of the country, reset foreign policy, end the Iraq war, and close Guantanamo Bay detention camp, inter alia. 

Today, detainees are no longer mentioned by the label, “enemy combatant” and torture is not the official modus operandi.  However, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp remains open and continues to house yet-to-be-tried alleged terrorist.  In fact, much of the Bush Administration’s War on Terror infrastructure remains in place.  Some methodology or labeling may have changed but in reality, any meaningful change is de minimis.  Regrettably, the standards of minimizing due process for detainees are status quo ante (same as before).

Therefore, denying due process under US law for anyone simply because the person is a suspected terrorist, not a US citizen or is held in detention offshore – is simply irrational, but may also discredit our judicial system and profoundly devalue what makes the US the great democracy it purports to be.  And just like we guarantee the value of the US dollar, with the full faith and credit of the nation, so too, must we guarantee justice for all who may be under US jurisdiction, in the same breath and essence under the rule of law.

In closing, I submit to you that regardless if the Republican held House is perceived as obstructing the closing of GITMO, or blocking detainee trials in US courts, President Barack Obama can no longer defend the indefensible; he is the Commander-in-Chief and he can and must do the right thing; by closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and allow those held in the American gulag to be tried in a court of law.  We must not forget that injustice to one is injustice for all.  So Mr. President, your word is the value of your legacy, and how we judge others, is the value of the country.  

Last thing, the premise of my argument in no way supports what 9-11 culprits did, but instead, I want to highlight the concerns of many, that if we allow our Constitutional protections to be devalued – we may loose the unalienable rights which were constituted in the Declaration of Independence which underscores that all men are created equal.

March, 8, 2013
PS:  I originally published this article with the Daily Kos on March 1,2013. Previously however, I had contacted the White House to get information as to when President Obama was to close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay - but my inquiry was dismissed.

When I posted this article with the Daily Kos and on twitter, the article was  sent to the White House.
This week, the nation became aware of Bin Laden's son-in-law being under US custody  and not placed at Guantanamo but brought to the US mainland to be tried in a US court of law.  This is CHANGE and justifiable.

I SMOKED A DOOBIE WITH YOUNG BARACK AT OXY. IT’S WHERE WE BEGAN OUR PLAN FOR CHANGE – SO WHAT’S HAPPENED?

Nov. 5, 2009
By

Joseph Chez

Barry, do you remember when life was just basketball, music and shooting the bull with our friends? Who can forget the good times we had at Haines Hall at Oxy, right? In fact, I still remember nights at the dorm in which music blared and the sweet smell of you know what, lingered up and down the hall. I also remember the day we were on the high, you took a bite of your favorite Hawaiian pizza from Casa Bianca’s and with a mouthful, you said; don’t call me Barry, my name is now Barack. You really looked so serious, but all I could do is laugh. Perhaps it was the high.  And , I don’t supposed you have forgotten your vigorous debates you started in professor Boesche’s Political Thought class, in which you robustly asserted your views for change? Someone changed at Oxy alright –and you were never the same since.

Yes, you continued to play JV with the Tigers, but I knew that in your mind, young Barack was now interested in political discourse and philosophical thought. From there on, you began vigorous debates at the dorms - with brothers, Chicanos and young republicans like “J” Boyers or Ken (S). But, I could never understand why you stopped calling the girl from Brentwood - she was so hot Barack!  Yet, I knew your future was at hand, and as the doobie-smoke cleared in the dorm hall, it was still fun, even though, you had began to take things to heart.

Yes, you became active for divestment of American public funds to end apartheid in South Africa - and you worked so hard. The day Nelson Mandela was released from jail, I believe we celebrated and it felt so right. And yet, many other things were on your our mind. For one thing, you did not like the war in Afghanistan and you used to argue that the Russians had no right to have invaded Afghanistan. You believed then, that the sovereignty of nations should not, for any reason, ever be compromised. And yes, you wanted to rid the world of hunger, poverty and to boot - get rid of all of nuclear weapons and bring proliferation to an end.
So Barack, I am proud to have stayed by your side, from Oxy, to Columbia, to Harvard and to the streets of Chicago, Illinois. But friend Barack, the narrative of your story seems to have changed. You got to the White House and the world rejoiced, but, the world now questions what has happened to those principles that you said should never be compromised?

Mr. President, since you are now in charge, why are so many of the former president’s policies still in place? Much of the Patriot Act which diluted our constitutional rights continues to be in place. You were overwhelmingly elected by the American people to end the war, and yet, you have given your generals the leeway of determining the course for the war. Rendition of foreign nationals continues in foreign soil and frankly, such policy does nothing to RESET our moral goal. Guantanamo remains open in ghastly opposition by nations of the world and so we question; why you do not use your presidential pen for a presidential order to close Guantanamo - and provide American justice to those who have not been tried or been convicted in a court of law?

Today the economy is showing signs of life, and yet, almost 10 per cent of the population remains unemployed, while Wall Street stock and securities pimps continue to rake in the dough. Yes, derivatives and shadowy hedge funds in the banking and securities market continue to thrive without meaningful government regulation. Bush’s privatization of the government continues unfettered; today, there are more private contractors in the war theatre of Afghanistan and Iraq than DOD personnel - with limitless funding and working only under an MOU (good faith agreement) for guidance. Thus, billions of tax dollars are being paid to these private contractors without taxpayer scrutiny. Moreover, the faith base funding, as envisioned by J.W. Bush, bless his soul, is currently funding religious goals, but truly not helping those homeless who live under a bridge. The worthless “No Child Left Behind” left by the Bush administration remains almost intact and the humanities are out the window, while teachers only teach students, standards that pit students against teachers and teachers against school administrators. However, the worst indictment Mr. President, is your naïveté belief that you must build consensus in a bi-partisan fashion in order to bring about change. You must truly understand that republicans are just not into you.  You should understand, that their main objective is to stand in the way - so democrats and you will fail. So I respectfully remind you sir, that you were overwhelmingly elected to lead and implement a democratic agenda, and that means: bringing the war in both Iraq and in Afghanistan to an end; instituting universal health care (a public option) for all and not succumbing to pressure from the health industry; completely ending the Cuban embargo without any preconditions (we do business with other totalitarian and communist states) ; strengthening environmental protection; decisively closing the Guantanamo gulag and returning the land to Cuba; pushing for strict governmental regulations on industry and commerce for the sake of consumer protections; reduce the war machinery and start investing in renewable and environmentally friendly energy; reduce the Pentagon’s limitless funding and start investing in higher education; and last, if we truly wish to end world terrorism, we must be forthright and take an even-handed foreign policy towards the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and abide by the United Nations mandate calling for a two state solution consistent with the 1967 borders.

In sum, I am still your friend and supporter Mr. President, but as the world remains hopeful for change, you must do your part and stand for principle and not political expediency. Wake up Barack!

IRAQ: SOVEREIGNTY DAY

JUNE 30, 2009 SOVEREIGNTY DAY IN IRAQ

By

Joseph Chez

ALL ROADS LEAD TO BAGHDAD ... so goes the saying. And surely , on the road again, the United States went to war via Baghdad in March 19, 2003. This June 30, 2009 however, American troops have been relegated to the outskirts of Iraqi cities and towns.

Today, Iraq celebrates a day which the Maliki government labeled, "sovereignty day". From the confines of the walled and heavily fortified "green zone", the Iraqi government has declared this day an official holiday. Outside the walled government, the Iraqi people rejoice and celebrate what many say is "Independence Day". Yes, independence day from the American invasion which has lasted 6 years and has caused at least 1, 320,110 Iraqi deaths. But, is the celebration a blessing for the Iraqis or a curse? What does it mean for the United States?

It is an indisputable fact that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were not to bring democracy to that nation, or to free the Iraqi people from oppression. Instead, the war in Iraq was ill- conceived with sinister plots to make it look like Saddam Hussein was somewhat connected with the 9-11 attack on the U.S. Further, the neo-cons, which were chuck full in the Bush Administration, effectively attempted to make us fear further attack from Iraqi WMD's or the "smoking gun" of nuclear and biological Iraqi weapons - which interestingly enough, never existed. Yes, George W. Bush, Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Condi Rice, Donald Runsfeld, Douglas Feith, James Woolsey, John R. Bolton and the Joe Liebermans will go down in our history as the morons whose ulterior motives mislead the nation.

So yes, the road to Baghdad has been costly. In terms of human casualties, the United States has suffered 4,319 dead U.S soldiers and 31,368 wounded. In US tax dollars, just in Iraq alone, the cost is rapidly reaching the one trillion dollar mark.

On the other hand, one can argue that "Iraqi Freedom" has created a democratic government - NOT. For despite elections that have taken place and a semblance of decreased violence, the American supported government will cease to exist once we have exited the country. Civil war will ensue and in the end, a strong "caliphate" will again control the fractured nation. And needless to say, American control or influence will cease to exist. So what was the point. I see, the neo-cons can celebrate the alleged liberation of Iraq, while the Iraqis today, celebrate the exiting of foreign invading forces from their cities.

In sum, the event horizon is upon us and the sobering facts become undeniable.

Lesson: before we get on the road, we should know its history, its potholes, and where it may lead us to.