FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

How to Close Guantánamo

by JOANNE MARINER

Last week, the heads of four prominent civil liberties and human rights organizations — the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Amnesty International USA, Human Rights First, and Human Rights Watch — sent a strongly-worded letter to President-elect Barack Obama. The letter expressed the groups’ views on how Obama should fulfill his pledge to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

The core message of the letter is clear: in closing Guantanamo, don’t just move it on-shore. Rather than holding suspected terrorists indefinitely without charge or trial, the next administration should return to the country’s established system of justice.

Set a Closure Date, Review Detainees’ Files, and Prosecute Those Implicated in Crimes

The letter begins by criticizing the Bush administration’s approach to detention. It explains that while the Geneva Conventions allow enemy soldiers to be held until the end of an international armed conflict, the Bush administration had stretched this wartime paradigm beyond recognition. What was new — and altogether radical — in the Bush administration’s approach was the notion that the wartime detention model could be extended to cover something as amorphous as the “war on terror”: a conflict that lacks a clearly defined enemy, geographical boundaries, or the prospect of ending anytime soon.

If a conflict exists everywhere and forever, the letter noted, empowering the government to detain combatants until the end of hostilities takes on a new and deeply disturbing meaning.

The letter then describes how the Obama administration should resolve the Guantanamo mess. First, when President Obama takes office, he should immediately set a date certain for closing Guantanamo. With this deadline in mind, the Justice Department should conduct a fresh review of all detainee records to determine which case files contain legitimate evidence of criminal activity.

Where such evidence does not exist, the detainees should be repatriated to their home countries for trial or release. If there is a risk of torture or abuse in their home countries, they should be transferred to third countries that will accept them or be admitted to the United States.

Where evidence of criminal activity does exist, detainees should be prosecuted in the traditional federal courts. Contrary to the views of proponents of detention without trial — who argue that the existing courts can’t handle terrorism prosecutions — the U.S. justice system has a long history of handling terrorism cases successfully. The courts’ time-tested procedures allow cases to go forward without compromising fundamental rights of defendants and without harming sensitive national security interests. In fact, a recent analysis of more than 100 terrorism cases — conducted by two former federal prosecutors for Human Rights First — found that “the justice system … continues to evolve to meet the challenge terrorism cases pose.”

The letter points out that the U.S. federal courts have, in particular, proven that they can handle sensitive evidence. The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) outlines a comprehensive set of procedures for federal criminal cases involving classified information. Applying CIPA over the years, courts have successfully balanced the need to protect national security information, including the sources and means of intelligence-gathering, with defendants’ fair trial rights.

Another Unconstitutional System of Detention?

The letter recognizes that some commentators assert that the best way to deal with the toughest cases at Guantanamo would be to establish a system of preventive detention — what the letter characterizes as another unconstitutional detention system. Adherents of this school of thought claim that some detainees are too dangerous to be released but cannot be successfully prosecuted. This claim is mostly based on the assumption that some detainees have committed crimes not covered by American law, that some cases rely on sensitive national security information that cannot be disclosed in open court, and that the evidence against some detainees would not be admissible in a regular court because it was coerced through torture or abuse.

But federal prosecutors have an imposing array of prosecutorial weapons at their disposal, including laws that criminalize conspiring or attempting to commit homicide, harboring or concealing terrorists, and providing “material support” to terrorist organizations. The government can secure a conviction for conspiracy by showing only an agreement to commit a crime against the United States and any overt act in furtherance of that agreement. If the government cannot meet that minimal burden of proof, it is difficult to see why it should continue to detain a suspect.

It is true that many of the statements obtained from detainees through abusive interrogation would not be admissible in a court of law. But the fact that the American justice system prohibits imprisonment on the basis of evidence tortured out of prisoners is one of its strengths, not a weakness; it’s why we call it a “justice system” in the first place. Moreover, one would hope that if a prisoner were as guilty or dangerous as claimed, the government would be able to gather enough admissible evidence to prove its case from untainted sources, such as computers or cell phones that were seized, conversations that were intercepted, or physical surveillance that was conducted.

But most importantly, the letter explains, to create a whole new detention system and enact new legislation to accommodate the Bush administration’s shameful torture policies would be a legal and moral catastrophe. Even the most unequivocal repudiation of torture would be hollow if Obama’s administration were to construct another regime to hide its occurrence and evade its consequences.

Lessons of the Last Eight Years

The letter concludes by advising Obama to learn from the mistakes made over the last eight years. One thing that the military commissions debacle has shown is that it is not possible to create a new system of justice in the United States without enduring years of litigation and controversy. Any new national court system or preventive detention regime will be challenged, most likely all the way to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, there will be massive controversy and uncertainty about the fate of detainees caught up in it.

Rather than experiment with new and untested detention models, the incoming president should restore the central role of the federal courts and reaffirm the country’s vigorous constitutional traditions.

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

JOANNE MARINER is a human rights lawyer living in New York and Paris.

Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail