FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Non-Closure of Guantánamo

by BINOY KAMPMARK

Guantánamo’s resplendent carceral facilities remain a classic example of double realities, the co-existence of totemic impulses and the reflex of taboo.  On the one hand, it has become an institutional reminder of the extensive, vague and indefinite “war” on terror, a foolish, reactive statement to calamity.  On the other, it has assumed the most negative connotations, a rebuke to law, extra-legal subversions and a mockery of the legal system.  To close it, however, would be deemed a violation.  To keep it open similarly remains a violation of principle.

The Obama administration promised to close it but caved in under pressure from Congress and pro-camp advocates.  As with so many matters, the power of the budget spoke volumes.  Furthermore, these detainees, kept wrongfully in many instances without a tissue of evidence against their name, might well have a crack at the United States once they leave.  Ever was there a disgruntled person made a criminal by a prison.  Governments from other countries similarly baulked – why should they receive such damaged cargo?

In the initial years, the Obama administration released 71 men from the facility, of whom 40 were repatriated to 17 third countries.  The momentum dramatically stopped, with the State Department envoy responsible for handling repatriations removed.

The very basis of incarceration without charge or conviction has demonstrated the gravest issue of legal exceptionalism in U.S. policy and jurisprudence.  The detainees, many kept in the facility for eleven-and-a-half years have become the refuse of a legal system that refuses to either expunge them or incorporate them as subjects of law.  They are, for all intents and purposes, non-subjects, creatures of juridical purgatory.  The absurdity of this is made apparent by the fact that a detainee like Sabry Mohammed has been cleared for release by a Justice Department list from 2010, yet remains in detention.

Released, yet imprisoned; imprisoned yet uncharged.  A legal cul-de-sac has been reached.  “We should be wiser,” urges Obama.  “We should have more experience in how we prosecute terrorists.  This is a lingering problem that is not going to get better.  It is going to get worse.”

Obama himself acknowledges that the facility is also providing something else – an incentive to attack the United States, a distinctly different sort of light on the hill.  The base has become something of a “recruitment tool” for extremists and more than just a public relations eye sore.

The high drama of Guantánamo has reached another level with accelerated use on the part of the inmates of hunger strikes.  Allegations have been made of a particularly unsavoury aspect the authorities have been noted to do – mistreat Qur’ans in the possession of the inmates. This is merely the tip of a particularly vast iceberg of abuse. The war of the stomach, used for political ends, is now in full swing.

Figures vary, but it seems that at least 100 prisoners have embarked on this act of ceremonial starvation, a number that has grown over the last few months.  The authorities, alarmed, have force fed 23, deploying a 40-strong medical force to administer treatment to the protesters.   Pardiss Kebriaei, senior attorney for Sabry Mohammed, described the determination of his client to force the issue.  “He told me, ‘I don’t want to not eat, I don’t want to starve myself. I don’t want to die, I want to see my family, but I have been pushed too far” (CBS News, May 1).

A petition by former prosecutor Col. Morris Davis to close the Bay facilities is red hot with signatures, reaching 75,000 within 24 hours.  “There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where not being charged with a war crime keeps you locked away indefinitely and a war crime conviction is your ticket home.” This is the great brutal absurdity – the necessity to be convicted in order to be freed.

Individuals such as Buck McKeon, Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee support what has become the necessary absurdity.  While it might be not merely moronic but unjust to detain the released and only release the guilty, he protested that Obama “has offered no alternative plan regarding detainees there, nor a plan for future terrorist captures” (Al Jazeera, May 1).

This has been an unwanted spectacle for the Obama administration, bringing what seems to be a calculated gesture of empathy from the President.  The fact that the closure itself seems unlikely doesn’t detract from the pathos – he is performing a role as commander-in-chief, and fears that reputations will be turned to mud.  Terrorist recruits are readying ideologies and weapons.  It is a pity that, for all its tear-jerking qualities, the promise to close the base won’t have much effect. Purgatories are, by their nature, intractable and, for the sake of the Guantánamo facility, irresistible.

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

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

January 23, 2017
John Wight
Trump’s Inauguration: Hail Caesar!
Mark Schuller
So What am I Doing Here? Reflections on the Inauguration Day Protests
Patrick Cockburn
The Rise of Trump and Isis Have More in Common Than You Might Think
Binoy Kampmark
Ignored Ironies: Women, Protest and Donald Trump
Gregory Barrett
Flag, Cap and Screen: Hollywood’s Propaganda Machine
Gareth Porter
US Intervention in Syria? Not Under Trump
L. Ali Khan
Trump’s Holy War against Islam
Gary Leupp
An Al-Qaeda Attack in Mali:  Just Another Ripple of the Endless, Bogus “War on Terror”
Norman Pollack
America: Banana Republic? Far Worse
Bob Fitrakis - Harvey Wasserman
We Mourn, But We March!
Kim Nicolini
Trump Dump: One Woman March and Personal Shit as Political
William Hawes
We Are on Our Own Now
Martin Billheimer
Last Tango in Moscow
Colin Todhunter
Development and India: Why GM Mustard Really Matters
Mel Gurtov
Trump’s America—and Ours
David Mattson
Fog of Science II: Apples, Oranges and Grizzly Bear Numbers
Clancy Sigal
Who’s Up for This Long War?
Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail