FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

How to Close Guantánamo

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.

November 20, 2018
John Davis
Geographies of Violence in Southern California
Anthony Pahnke
Abolishing ICE Means Defunding it
Maximilian Werner
Why (Mostly) Men Trophy Hunt: a Biocultural Explanation
Masturah Alatas
Undercutting Female Circumcision
Jack Rasmus
Global Oil Price Deflation 2018 and Beyond
Geoff Dutton
Why High Technology’s Double-Edged Sword is So Hard to Swallow
Binoy Kampmark
Charges Under Seal: US Prosecutors Get Busy With Julian Assange
Rev. William Alberts
America Fiddles While California Burns
Forrest Hylton, Aaron Tauss and Juan Felipe Duque Agudelo
Remaking the Common Good: the Crisis of Public Higher Education in Colombia
Patrick Cockburn
What Can We Learn From a Headmaster Who Refused to Allow His Students to Celebrate Armistice Day?
Clark T. Scott
Our Most Stalwart Company
Tom H. Hastings
Look to the Right for Corruption
Edward Hunt
With Nearly 400,000 Dead in South Sudan, Will the US Finally Change Its Policy?
Thomas Knapp
Hypocrisy Alert: Republicans Agreed with Ocasio-Cortez Until About One Minute Ago
November 19, 2018
David Rosen
Amazon Deal: New York Taxpayers Fund World Biggest Sex-Toy Retailer
Sheldon Richman
Art of the Smear: the Israel Lobby Busted
Chad Hanson
Why Trump is Wrong About the California Wildfires
Dean Baker
Will Progressives Ever Think About How We Structure Markets, Instead of Accepting them as Given?
Robert Fisk
We Remember the Great War, While Palestinians Live It
Dave Lindorff
Pelosi’s Deceptive Plan: Blocking any Tax Rise Could Rule Out Medicare-for-All and Bolstering Social Security
Rick Baum
What Can We Expect From the Democrat “Alternative” Given Their Record in California?
Thomas Scott Tucker
Trump, World War I and the Lessons of Poetry
John W. Whitehead
Red Flag Gun Laws
Newton Finn
On Earth, as in Heaven: the Utopianism of Edward Bellamy
Robert Fantina
Shithole Countries: Made in the USA
René Voss
Have Your Say about Ranching in Our Point Reyes National Seashore
Weekend Edition
November 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jonah Raskin
A California Jew in a Time of Anti-Semitism
Andrew Levine
Whither the Melting Pot?
Joshua Frank
Climate Change and Wildfires: The New Western Travesty
Nick Pemberton
The Revolution’s Here, Please Excuse Me While I Laugh
T.J. Coles
Israel Cannot Use Violent Self-Defense While Occupying Gaza
Rob Urie
Nuclear Weapons are a Nightmare Made in America
Paul Street
Barack von Obamenburg, Herr Donald, and Big Capitalist Hypocrisy: On How Fascism Happens
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fire is Sweeping Our Very Streets Today
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s New President, Other European Fools and the Abyss 
Pete Dolack
“Winners” in Amazon Sweepstakes Sure to be the Losers
Richard Eskow
Amazon, Go Home! Billions for Working People, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ramzy Baroud
In Breach of Human Rights, Netanyahu Supports the Death Penalty against Palestinians
Brian Terrell
Ending the War in Yemen- Congressional Resolution is Not Enough!
John Laforge
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
Ralph Nader
The War Over Words: Republicans Easily Defeat the Democrats
M. G. Piety
Reading Plato in the Time of the Oligarchs
Rafael Correa
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
Brian Cloughley
Aid Projects Can Work, But Not “Head-Smacking Stupid Ones”
David Swanson
A Tale of Two Marines
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail