FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Back to the Death Commission

by BINOY KAMPMARK

It seemed like a bright vision.  And that was primarily because it did not feature President George W. Bush.  But here, the Obama administration has undertaken what it said it would not do – run trials before military commissions it promised it would disband, against detainees whose legal status it promised to resolve, from a camp it promised it would close.  The military commissions were merely lying dormant, awaiting a signature to revitalise them.

The recipient of this newly aroused system will be Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, claimed by American authorities to be the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and accused of the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.  Last Wednesday, the Pentagon filed capital charges against the Saudi national.

As Obama’s term continued, the sidestepping began over various electoral promises it staked its credentials upon.  Sidestepping then became full reversals.  In March 7 this year, the President signed an executive order which effectively gave the green light to resume military trials against the detainees in the Guantánamo prison facilities.  Continued detention of those in the facility would have to continue because they ‘in effect remain at war with the United States’.  What the order did was ‘establish, as a discretionary matter, a process to review on a periodic basis the executive branch’s continued, discretionary exercise of existing detention authority in individual cases.’

The facilities on Guantánamo have become something of an American fetish, a self-supporting fantasy of deterrence against its enemies.  Patrick Robinson would claim in the Huffington Post (Feb 9, 2010) that the facility should be left open as it was ‘the most priceless source of intelligence gathered on a daily basis from incarcerated killers whose determination to continue the fight against the West breaks down under US interrogation.’  And how confident Robinson is of such techniques of interrogation, not to mention repudiating the presumption of innocence.

The New York Daily News crowed with approval at Obama’s Executive order – at least in part. Despite making an incomplete ‘U-turn’, the President had acknowledged that, despite not wearing uniforms, these ‘terrorists’ were ‘in every sense of the word, waging war against the United States.’  (That terrorists can themselves wage war is a questionable concept to begin with, but the subtleties of language have suffered a dramatic death since 2001.)  While the inmates should not be tortured, they should hardly ‘be read Miranda warnings.’  Nor could the editorial staff see a ‘meaningful substantive distinction between military tribunals and civilian trials’.

Over time, various barriers have frustrated the Obama administration’s aims towards those in detention.  For one thing, the fears that a security tag would be enormous dogged efforts to relocate detainees to the mainland.  Had, for instance, New York been the venue of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s civilian trial, the New York Police Department would have gotten the jitters.  ‘We will have to look at the entire city as a potential target’, claimed Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

Some procedural tinkering with the tribunals has taken place. The Pentagon promises closed-circuit television access to journalists from Fort Meade, Maryland given a sense of ‘live justice’.  Coerced evidence will not be admitted.  None of this will make much of a difference to al-Nashiri.  The US record against him is a poor one – waterboarding, threatened drilling to the skull.  As Denny LeBoeuf, director of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project explains, military commissions possess ‘unfairly lax rules for allowing evidence, except when it comes to torture – the commissions may admit coerced testimony, while evidence of the torture that produced it can be censored’ (Press Release, ACLU, Sep 28).

Much of the case is also circumstantial or based on hearsay, which would make getting a conviction in a civilian court more problematic.  But there could be a rather perverse outcome here should al-Nashiri be convicted as a war criminal.  The events al-Nashiri is accused of engineering took place in 2000, before the declaration of the fatuous ‘global war on terror’.  As David Glazier of Loyola Law School has explained, to do so ‘could be construed as saying that a terrorist group can legally create a war.’  Now that would be exceptional.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

August 29, 2016
Patrick Timmons
Dildos on Campus, Gun in the Library: the New York Times and the Texas Gun War
Jack Rasmus
Bernie Sanders ‘OR’ Revolution: a Statement or a Question?
Richard Moser
Strategic Choreography and Inside/Outside Organizers
Nigel Clarke
President Obama’s “Now Watch This Drive” Moment
Robert Fisk
Iraq’s Willing Executioners
Wahid Azal
The Banality of Evil and the Ivory Tower Masterminds of the 1953 Coup d’Etat in Iran
Farzana Versey
Romancing the Activist
Frances Madeson
Meet the Geronimos: Apache Leader’s Descendants Talk About Living With the Legacy
Nauman Sadiq
The War on Terror and the Carter Doctrine
Lawrence Wittner
Does the Democratic Party Have a Progressive Platform–and Does It Matter?
Marjorie Cohn
Death to the Death Penalty in California
Winslow Myers
Asking the Right Questions
Rivera Sun
The Sane Candidate: Which Representatives Will End the Endless Wars?
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia District Attorney Hammered for Hypocrisy
Binoy Kampmark
Banning Burkinis: the Politics of Beachwear
Weekend Edition
August 26, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Louisa Willcox
The Unbearable Killing of Yellowstone’s Grizzlies: 2015 Shatters Records for Bear Deaths
Paul Buhle
In the Shadow of the CIA: Liberalism’s Big Embarrassing Moment
Rob Urie
Crisis and Opportunity
Charles Pierson
Wedding Crashers Who Kill
Richard Moser
What is the Inside/Outside Strategy?
Dirk Bezemer – Michael Hudson
Finance is Not the Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Bernie’s Used Cars
Margaret Kimberley
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Patrick Cockburn
Turkey’s Foray into Syria: a Gamble in a Very Dangerous Game
Ishmael Reed
Birther Tries to Flim Flam Blacks  
Brian Terrell
What Makes a Hate Group?
Andrew Levine
How Donald Trump Can Still be a Hero: Force the Guardians of the Duopoly to Open Up the Debates
Howard Lisnoff
Trouble in Political Paradise
Terry Tempest Williams
Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?
Ben Debney
The Swimsuit that Overthrew the State
Ashley Smith
Anti-imperialism and the Syrian Revolution
Andrew Stewart
Did Gore Throw the 2000 Election?
Vincent Navarro
Is the Nation State and Its Welfare State Dead? a Critique of Varoufakis
John Wight
Syria’s Kurds and the Wages of Treachery
Lawrence Davidson
The New Anti-Semitism: the Case of Joy Karega
Mateo Pimentel
The Affordable Care Act: A Litmus Test for American Capitalism?
Roger Annis
In Northern Syria, Turkey Opens New Front in its War Against the Kurds
David Swanson
ABC Shifts Blame from US Wars to Doctors Without Borders
Norman Pollack
American Exceptionalism: A Pernicious Doctrine
Ralph Nader
Readers Think, Thinkers Read
Julia Morris
The Mythologies of the Nauruan Refugee Nation
George Wuerthner
Caving to Ranchers: the Misguided Decision to Kill the Profanity Wolf Pack
Ann Garrison
Unworthy Victims: Houthis and Hutus
Julian Vigo
Britain’s Slavery Legacy
John Stanton
Brzezinski Vision for a Power Sharing World Stymied by Ignorant Americans Leaders, Citizens
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail