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.

AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL NOT AS STRONG

American support not as strong as Israel wears on its lapel.

By

 

                                                                      Joseph Chez

December 5, 2012

If one could percolate all of the conflict in the Middle East, the 9-11 attack on US soil and civil liberties Americans have lost as a result of the fabricated #WarOnTerror , one could see at the bottom of the strainer, the remainder source of the world’s problems, including our own, and that is: our involvement as main arbitrator of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the blind support US gives Israel, and the footprint we have in every repressive regime or kingdom in that part of the world.  The facts notwithstanding, the recent vote at the United Nations favoring the Palestinians cause, truly places the US on the world stage, however, the king now stands naked before the eyes of the world – alone and isolated. So what will happen next to US and Israel?

On November 29, 2012 State Dept Sec. Hillary Clinton officially commented that the UN Vote was “unfortunate and counter-productive.” But just a day after, at a dinner in her honor, she was more sincere; she lambasted Israel for having been “insensitive” to the Palestinian needs – diplomatic language for being “treacherous.”  In the meantime, during the UN vote, it is said that at the Knesset, the Likud and nationalist leaders were somewhat put-off, and were even sarcastic at the UN vote they felt was meaningless.  

Thus, brushing off their shoulders for what had just happened, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu along with his closest political right wing supporter, Foreign Minister Abigdor Lieberman, announced Israel would began building new settlements outside the E1 area, i.e., building east of Jerusalem, in the area within West Bank proper.  Additionally, the Israeli government immediately issued a public briefing stating it would also be confiscating Palestinian funds from several sources.  These would be some of the several responses the Israeli government would do – and more.  Thus, one can just imagine what Israel was contemplating, after having come out unscathed from a barrage of rickety-rockets from Hamas and with full official support of the European Union and the United States of America, Netanyahu’s regime must have felt untouchable. Moreover, their “Iron dome” was almost impenetrable and this perhaps gave the Israeli government a sense of invincibility.

However, to the surprise of Israel, most of the European nations voted in support of the de facto state of Palestine, with the exception of the Czech Republic.  In fact, they even expected Germany to vote no, but instead, Germany abstained. Nonetheless, despite the overwhelming rebuke, Israel remains unrepentant and unapologetic.

The United States on the other hand, officially remains supportive of Israel’s approach to negotiated peace talks between the two parties.  However, the Obama Administration realizes that both Israel and the US are now lumped together as a team that is isolated from the rest of the diplomatic world.   But, unlike Israel, the US is realistic and recognizes the UN vote was a diplomatic disaster.

For Israel, its modus operandi will remain status quo ante (same as before).  But, is it wise for Israel to continue kicking the can down the road – as Likud party leaders refer to, of their policy of peace talks with the Palestinians?  Can their overconfident attitude and robust US endless supply of weaponry guarantee Israel’s peace and security? The answer is NO – as a great number of nations were so deliberate in their UN vote. Moreover, the dynamics in the area have changed and they do not favor Israel.  Also, keep in mind that Netanyahu’s hope for US president, Mitt Romney, lost – and Republicans, the staunch religious political support for Israel, also lost.  And of greatest concern to Israel, is that 70% of American Jews voted for President Obama and not for the Republican candidate who made Israel’s support the hallmark of his campaign.

So, what these facts in American politics say is that support for Israel may not be as prominent and solid as Israel wears on its lapel.  In fact, the American people may well be fickle, but, they can also be just as pragmatic. Thus, support for Israel can officially change if Israel were to remain obstinate.  Already, criticism of Israel is coming out of previously whispering conversations – the taboo no longer a social constraint.  

Therefore, the most obvious and reasonable  course of action for Israel is to stop the intransigency and undergo UN supervision of peace talks, with the end goal, of adhering to existing UN resolutions  which call for Israel to retreat back to 1967 borders.  Additionally, the US must step back and allow the UN to take the lead in peace negotiations, but it should also not stand in the way in any UN Security Council resolution favoring a Palestinian state, or condemning Israel if the case may arise. For as long as Israel understands that the US can or will use its veto power at the Security Council, Israel will have no incentive to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians or adhere to international law requirements.

Already, several European nations such as France and England, are recalling their ambassadors in Israel for consultations. In diplomatic gesture, it is a slap in the face for Israel, but also for its benefactor, the US.  Many other nations may also follow suit.  In sum, what we do will determine who we are and what we stand for.  Thus, in the face of international scorn we must not stand with the status quo.

 

HELEN THOMAS: “WHAT IS THE CORE REASONS THEY WANT TO BLOW US UP?”

By


Joseph Chez

Ever since the attempted terrorist attack on Flight 253, the media and our government has been consumed with what is perceived as a systemic security failure. Consequently, reactionary measures are being put in place in hopes of keeping the country safe. But will we be safer with beefing up security without considering the cause and affect of what fuels terrorism?

On January 5, 2010 at a White House news briefing, the dean of the White House Press Corps and columnist for the Hearst Newspapers, Helen Thomas, asked Press Secy. Robert Gibbs the most profound, yet simple question to date concerning the attempted terrorist attack- and so she asked: “what is the core reasons they want to blow us up?” Not surprised, Press Secy. Gibbs responded consistent with our national denial and did not adequately answer Helen’s question. Here’s what he did say:

MR. GIBBS: I don't know that I'm the best person to speak for some of their actions.

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, again, I think that for whatever awful and murderous reason that people seek to get on planes and do innocent people throughout the world harm, I can't speak to the type of deranged mentality that leads somebody to do that.

Immediately after the White House news briefing that day, I contacted Helen and thanked her for having the determination to ask questions which are not being asked by the rest of the media, and questions which are not being addressed by this administration. Helen responded that it was important to get the administration on record that if they do know or acknowledge the cause of the new hatred against us, that it was important that we know what the authorities do know.

On January 7, 2010, during a White House Briefing by Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Brennan, and Press Secretary Gibbs, Helen once again asked:



HELEN: … what is really lacking always for us is you don't give the motivation of why they want to do us harm.

MR. BRENNAN: Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. What they have done over the past decade and a half, two decades, is to attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he's able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death.

HELEN: And you're saying it's because of religion?

MR. BRENNAN: I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way.

HELEN: Why?

MR. BRENNAN: I think this is a -- this is a long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.

HELEN: But you haven’t explained why.



Of course, as in litigation, a lawyer should not ask a question for which he/she does not know the answer. In like circumstances, a news reporter should ask questions for which there is still no answer. Thus, Helen, the renowned journalist that she is, continues to ask “why” we are being targeted by terrorist.

As a young man, while in college, I worked for the USFS as a member of a hot-shot fire crew, and the most basic of fire science taught me that in fighting fire, one must get to the source of the fire - first and foremost. Simply throwing water at the flames is meaningless and does nothing to abate the fire. Therefore, in extinguishing a fire, one must first take out the source of the fire and second, whatever fuels the fire. Likewise, tackling the issue of terrorism, our national leaders must not only know the source of terrorism but must also tackle what fuels terrorism. Simply reacting with surprise, finger pointing and instituting tougher security measures does not address the issue of why such individuals are so willing to give up their lives in order to get to us. Can we really stop them? Not really. For example, while our government is focusing on tightening airport security, thousands of Iranians, Somalis, Iraqis, et al, are skipping the airports and are simply walking up to our border crossings and asking for asylum. After a short detention, they are simply let out – on their own recognizance- and are given a date for an immigration hearing (if they ever show up of course). Does anybody see a failure to connect dots………?

And so I agree with Helen Thomas, that it is imperative that the core reasons for “why” they want to harm us be considered and answered by our government leaders. For if we deliberately disavow our uneven-handedness in the Israeli/Palestinian issue or our hostile involvement in the various, overt and clandestine wars in the Middle East, then, we are fooling ourselves and adding fuel to the fire which may consume us. Conversely, if we truly wish to be safe from terror, we must therefore resolve the issues which fuel the hatred towards our country.

STATUS QUO ANTE PREVAILING IN US FOREIGN POLICY. DID SOMEONE FORGET TO PUSH THE RESET BUTTON?

By
Joseph Chez

The attempted terrorist attack on Xmas day is of course regrettable and troubling. However, we should be asking ourselves why such animus towards the United States of America continues? Did we not get another leader that promised change and the resetting of American foreign policy? Today, the hostilities in the Middle East continue and we are in constant panic at home because of attempted terror attacks on the country. I therefore argue, that having voted for change, there seems to be a disconnect somewhere. Perhaps, the reset button has yet to be pushed?

“We will not rest until we find all who were involved and are held accountable” is what President Obama said in a response to Al Qaeda’s claim for the Xmas day attempted terrorist attack on the U.S. bound passenger plane. Interestingly, the President’s warning to the terrorist was given with much bravado and unyielding determination. In fact, it was reminiscent of the same bravado given by former President George W. Bush as he addressed a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001- in which he unequivocally gave a stern warning to the 9-11 culprits and gave his “justice will be done” speech. So what’s wrong with this picture? Certainly, it is not what we say in repudiating the terrorist acts or warning the enemy for what it may do in the future, but simply, the bravado in our responses which is simply chest beating – which does nothing to resolve the core issues between our national security and the terrorist’s grievances. Thus, responding in a cowboy-swaggering behavior does little to inflict fear on the enemy and in the end, does not provide significant security for the country. Further, such assurance of finding “all involved” and holding them accountable is rather a tall order to fulfill, given that in the last nine years, the prime suspect and mastermind of the 9-11 attack, Osama bin Laden, has yet to be found. Further, the ones currently held in detention, the majority have been released (or about to be released) due to unfounded ties to terrorism. We therefore must ask, is the military option the answer to our national security, or, is it the cause of our problem?

Further, why carry on with the same unilateralism and preemptive militaristic mentality - which prevailed during the Bush Administration? Was it really necessary to start a clandestine war in Pakistan which now is in full bloom? Was it necessary to preemptively make strikes in Yemen this last week – which of course set a course of events in motion on Xmas Day – as claimed by Al Qaeda? Will Somalia be next? And how many generations will the war on terror continue into the future?

On November 4, 2008, the majority of the Americans people, who had concluded that the Bush policies on the war on terror were ill-fated and counter-productive, decisively and prudently chose a new national leader in hopes of changing the course of the country. President Obama was thus elected, as he had promised a new beginning in terms of foreign policy, inter alia. However, many now question why President Obama’s promises have fallen short and change has been mistranslated to mean, more of the same, as during the Bush Administration.

We should not forget that during the eight years of the Bush Administration, the model for the war on terror became of global reach and its doctrine was one which promulgated a practice of unilateralism and preemption - against any and all which we deemed a potential enemy. President Obama on the other hand, began with extending a hand to the world, especially the Muslim world, and promised better relations. And yet, the aggressive military campaign that prevailed during the Bush Administration continues - unabated. Moreover, President Obama appears to have taken the baton from Bush and expanded the global U.S. military reach and has created a whole new war theater, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. This last week (Dec. 17) the U.S. launched cruise missile strikes against what was believed to be Al Qaeda training camps, in Yemen. But then again, just across the Gulf of Aden, is Somalia – another Al Qaeda stronghold. And last but not least, the young terrorist that attempted to blow up the Northwest Airline, Flight 252 on Dec. 25th, originated from Nigeria –another of many radicalized Muslim African regions. So where do we stop?

We therefore must conclude that our nation’s state of affairs under President Obama’s Administration is status quo ante, same as before. And as he stated today, that “We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat extremist who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan, or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. Homeland.” Thus, we must presume that the war on terror will continue, using Bush’s terminology - way into the event-horizon.

But hold on Mr. President, did you not mean to push the reset button, thus changing the course of events and pave the way for peace? Or, did you mean to reinvent yourself while in office and deceive those who placed so much hope in you to become president? With all due respect Mr. President, you are taking us further into a path of self destruction. Yes, we can stop. Yes, we should take a big breath and reflect. Let’s take this opportunity to stop all hostilities and you will find that the kinetics of war will stand down. Further military responses will only cause an untold number of attacks on the country and perhaps around the world. The alternative may be that we continue to live under further fear of terrorist attacks as well as live under the heavy hand of domestic security. What more are we to expect; more personal intrusion, cavity searches for everyone, at every public gathering, and are we to also embrace even more erosion in our civil liberties? No Mr. President, I did not vote for that.

Already, the political right in the country is publicly calling for no further political correctness, which is code for – just tell it like it is- and perhaps call for the internment of anyone who does not look Anglo-Saxon. There is historical precedence for this you know. Even more frightening, is the neo-cons who are calling for the expansion of the war on terror – to reach Yemen, Somalia, Iran, N. Korea and beyond. Thus, are we prepared for what may result from failure to reset? Mr. President, I distinctly remember not voting for the status quo. I voted for Change.