FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Benchmarking Obama

Less than a month into President Obama’s term, many of the Bush Administration’s worst counterterrorism policies have been left behind. Guantanamo has a set date for closure; CIA “black sites” have been banned; and the unfair military commission proceedings at Guantanamo have been suspended.

But there have already been disappointments. On Monday, in appellate argument in the case of Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., the new administration stuck with an indefensible Bush Administration position on the state secrets privilege. In urging the court to uphold the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging CIA flights that brought suspects to be tortured, the Justice Department acknowledged that the new administration was taking “exactly” the same position as the previous one had.

Unlike the Bush Administration, which was responsible for the abusive renditions, the Obama Administration is not relying on the state secrets privilege to cover up its own misdeeds. But it is hard to fathom why the new officials would insist on such a broad interpretation of the privilege that a legitimate and important case—involving the most serious of crimes—would be tossed out of court.

The lead plaintiff in the Jeppesen case, Binyam Mohamed, claims, with much evidentiary support, that he was delivered to Morocco in 2002 and subjected to horrific torture. His claims were also the subject of a British court ruling last week—another Obama Administration disappointment.

In the UK litigation, which involved US efforts to keep evidence of Mohamed’s torture secret, the judges acknowledged that Mohamed had been tortured. They held that they had to close the case, nonetheless, due to US warnings that revealing the information would endanger US counterterrorism cooperation with Britain. As the court noted disapprovingly, the Obama Administration has taken no steps to disavow the prior administration’s views.

“It was submitted to us,” the British court explained, “that the situation had changed significantly following the election of President Obama who was avowedly determined to eschew torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and to close Guantanamo Bay. We have, however, been informed by counsel for the Foreign Secretary that the [US] position has not changed.”

Full stop, as the British say.

What’s Coming Up

So will the Obama Administration make broad and meaningful changes in counterterrorism policy, or will the scope of its reforms be more modest? Over the next couple of months, the new administration will face a series of tests that will reveal the strength of its commitment to reform. Below is a set of benchmarks by which to measure the new administration’s progress.

Access to Guantanamo. Last week, four leading human rights and civil liberties groups—the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights First, and Human Rights Watch—sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that they be granted access to the military detention center at Guantanamo. The groups would like to review conditions of confinement there and make recommendations for revising US detention policies—recommendations that would feed into a review that the Obama Administration has already initiated.

Under the Bush Administration, human rights groups and UN monitors were barred from examining conditions at Guantanamo; only the Red Cross, which keeps its findings confidential, was allowed in. A change in policy on this question would send a powerful message that the new administration is serious about detention reform.

The Bagram 4. Next week, on February 20, the new administration is supposed to decide what position to take on the question of whether detainees held at the military prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan should be allowed to challenge the legitimacy of their detention in federal court. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, in Washington, is hearing the cases of four individuals—two Yemenis, an Afghan and a Tunisian—who are currently in detention at Bagram. Although held in Afghanistan, at least some of the four were picked up far from any battle zone, in places like Dubai and Thailand. The men, who have been held for several years, are claiming the right to pursue a habeas challenge, a right the US Supreme Court has already recognized for detainees held at Guantanamo.

Al Marri. Another pending court case with important implications for US counterterrorism policy is that of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari citizen being held without charge in the United States. Al-Marri was arrested at his home in Illinois in 2001, held for a time as a material witness and on criminal charges, and then in June 2003 declared to be an “enemy combatant.” Since then he’s been held in solitary confinement in a Navy Brig in South Carolina.

The Bush Administration made the far-reaching claim that it could hold al-Marri without charge indefinitely. However, one of President Obama’s recent executive orders called for a review of al-Marri’s status, sparking hopes that a fairer resolution to his case will be found. March 23 marks the deadline set by the appellate court hearing al-Marri’s case for the new administration to present its views.

Resettlement of detainees from Guantanamo. Last fall, a district court in Washington ordered the Bush Administration to release 17 Uighur detainees held at Guantanamo. The men, who were found not to be “enemy combatants,” cannot return to China, their home country, because of the strong likelihood of torture or other abuse. Given that their detention at Guantanamo has dragged on unfairly for years, the district court ordered that they be brought to the United States for resettlement. A large local Uighur community has promised to welcome them and assist in their integration into US society.

That ruling is current on appeal—but the Obama Administration could make the policy choice to bring the 17 Uighurs to the United States at any time. Not only would such a decision be a good way to make amends for their long and harrowing detention, it would also be a powerful means of encouraging European countries to accept other detainees for resettlement.

More Challenges

The issues listed above are just the first batch; the new administration will need to make many other urgent and difficult counterterrorism-related decisions during its first year in office.

By the end of the year—when the new administration has made clear how it plans to prosecute terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo, whether it plans to allow the CIA to carry out renditions based on diplomatic assurances, whether the CIA will be allowed to use classified interrogation techniques, and whether a commission of inquiry will be established to investigate Bush Administration abuses, among other questions—we’ll be able to evaluate the new administration’s promise of change.

JOANNE MARINER is a human rights attorney based in New York.

 

More articles by:

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

Weekend Edition
May 25, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
A Major Win for Trump’s War Cabinet
Andrew Levine
Could Anything Cause the GOP to Dump Trump?
Pete Tucker
Is the Washington Post Soft on Amazon?
Conn Hallinan
Iran: Sanctions & War
Jeffrey St. Clair
Out of Space: John McCain, Telescopes and the Desecration of Mount Graham
John Laforge
Senate Puts CIA Back on Torture Track
David Rosen
Santa Fe High School Shooting: an Incel Killing?
Gary Leupp
Pompeo’s Iran Speech and the 21 Demands
Jonathan Power
Bang, Bang to Trump
Robert Fisk
You Can’t Commit Genocide Without the Help of Local People
Brian Cloughley
Washington’s Provocations in the South China Sea
Louis Proyect
Requiem for a Mountain Lion
Robert Fantina
The U.S. and Israel: a Match Made in Hell
Kevin Martin
The Libya Model: It’s Not Always All About Trump
Susie Day
Trump, the NYPD and the People We Call “Animals”
Pepe Escobar
How Iran Will Respond to Trump
Sarah Anderson
When CEO’s Earn 5,000 Times as Much as a Company’s Workers
Ralph Nader
Audit the Outlaw Military Budget Draining America’s Necessities
Chris Wright
The Significance of Karl Marx
David Schultz
Indict or Not: the Choice Mueller May Have to Make and Which is Worse for Trump
George Payne
The NFL Moves to Silence Voices of Dissent
Razan Azzarkani
America’s Treatment of Palestinians Has Grown Horrendously Cruel
Katalina Khoury
The Need to Evaluate the Human Constructs Enabling Palestinian Genocide
George Ochenski
Tillerson, the Truth and Ryan Zinke’s Interior Department
Jill Richardson
Our Immigration Debate Needs a Lot More Humanity
Martha Rosenberg
Once Again a Slaughterhouse Raid Turns Up Abuses
Judith Deutsch
Pension Systems and the Deadly Hand of the Market
Shamus Cooke
Oregon’s Poor People’s Campaign and DSA Partner Against State Democrats
Thomas Barker
Only a Mass Struggle From Below Can End the Bloodshed in Palestine
Binoy Kampmark
Australia’s China Syndrome
Missy Comley Beattie
Say “I Love You”
Ron Jacobs
A Photographic Revenge
Saurav Sarkar
War and Moral Injury
Clark T. Scott
The Shell Game and “The Bank Dick”
Seth Sandronsky
The State of Worker Safety in America
Thomas Knapp
Making Gridlock Great Again
Manuel E. Yepe
The US Will Have to Ask for Forgiveness
Laura Finley
Stop Blaming Women and Girls for Men’s Violence Against Them
Rob Okun
Raising Boys to Love and Care, Not to Kill
Christopher Brauchli
What Conflicts of Interest?
Winslow Myers
Real Security
George Wuerthner
Happy Talk About Weeds
Abel Cohen
Give the People What They Want: Shame
David Yearsley
King Arthur in Berlin
Douglas Valentine
Memorial Day
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail