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.

CLOSE GUANTANAMO U.S. FACILITY AND RETURN TO CUBA

The American people voted for change and the Guantanamo stain was a big factor. Why? Undeniably, Delta Camp in Guantanamo Bay Cuba became a moral disaster for the reputation of our nation. This is because the prison or detention camp, was deliberately set up by the Bush Administration outside U.S. borders for the specific reason of circumventing U.S. Law. However, the thought of naming the detainees with convoluted terms such as "non-combatants" and thus, believing they would not be covered by either U.S. law or International convention, was sadly, a sloppy and goofy attempt that failed. Instead, the world saw GITMO, the giddy way of calling the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, as an illegal prison camp which violated the norms of U.S. law as well as international law. Moreover, the reports of inhumane treatment in many cases were further illegal acts under international convention. Thus, what has resulted from this GITMO fiasco is a moral issue for our nation's reputation, but additionally, a definite stain on the virtue of our law. Recognizing that the Guantanamo detention camp had become an overwhelming disapproval with the American people, no less with the entire world, (now) President Barack Obama promised he would immediately close GITMO. But when? Just yesterday, January 22, 2009, he signed a presidential order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp within one year. But Mr. President, how can we accept the stain of an illegal premise for a whole year? Surely, there should be caution, but what is prevailing is uproar by the right and neo-cons to the extreme. The main argument is that if they are let out, they will return to harm us. Correct. They will come back, but only to file suit against our government in our courts for unlawful detention. For those not released, we should submit them to the process of our legal system. What do we have to fear? That our legal system is worthless?
Imagine if you will, what if the value of our U.S. dollar only had value within our borders? Conceivably, our dollar would be worthless. Nobody outside the US would accept our currency and thus, no US goods would be bought, and we would not be the power that we are. In like circumstance, the law applies in this same concept. My point is, that our legal system is the greatest concept conceived by mankind and its value will withstand any test, including determining the guilt or innocence of those in detention at Guantanamo Bay.
We know however, that the Bush Administration precisely did not want to have these detainees processed by our laws because most of the detainees were either tortured, victims of rendition, or the charges could not be substantiated even in traffic court. For such reasons, the Bush Administration set up a new military tribunal system that was designed deliberately so detainees could not present witnesses, present evidence in their behalf, or demand to see evidence to support the charges.
In many cases, individuals detained in Guantanamo were merely picked up in various areas of the Middle East simply because they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Others were merely accused by enemy warlords, or for as little as receiving a cash reward. But in more sinister situations, middle eastern individuals, whose names were similar to names on a US government presumptive terrorist list, were detained at many parts of the world, even though, the only connection to the war on terror, was that they were Muslim or had a middle eastern name.
So yes! The Guantanamo Bay Delta Detention Camp should be immediately dismantled and closed. And every individual within the camp should immediately be given their habeas corpus, which is a right to secure a speedy relief from an unlawful detention+.+ Which brings me to the second most heard argument against releasing those detainees; that because much of the evidence against many of the prisoners has been compromised or is top secret, such nonsense holds no water. For if evidence has been compromised and the prisoner is still believed to be a bona fide suspect, under our present legal system, the prosecution can present other verifiable evidence against the subject. And if no such evidence exist, release them.
For those who we can prove their alleged guilt, lets bring them to the proper federal jurisdiction. Yes, in the mainland an not in Guantanamo or in CIA field detention camps which dot many areas of the world. What you say? Our laws and legal protections are not for non-citizens? Remember what I said about the value of our money. If our money does not bear value to the outside world, it is worthless. Hence, the same applies to our laws.
In sum, lets take this opportunity to redeem this shameful act of our former government under the Bush Administration, and let's close the dammed camp. It's an embarrassment, it is unlawful and immoral. And by the way, there is no strategic reason for us to maintain the lease of Guantanamo Bay Cuba, as that is also a shameful reminder of the Monroe Doctrine which bullied Latin America. And for those who may not know, Guantanamo Bay is not U.S. property. We forced a lease onto the Cuban people in a shameful act. Thus, we should close GITMO and return Guantanamo Bay to the rightful owner - Cuba.
Joseph Chez