FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama’s New Euphemism

by JOANNE MARINER

The Bush administration will no doubt be remembered for torture, Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib, as well as for catchy euphemisms like “enhanced interrogation” and histrionic catch-phrases like “the Global War on Terror.”

The Obama administration has introduced a new lexicon that includes words like “fairness,” “values,” and “the Constitution.” But there are worrying signs, as the new government’s policies develop, that its change in vocabulary is more striking than its change in ideas.

President Obama did make immediate and crucial reforms in barring torture and closing CIA “black sites.” Unfortunately, the White House hasn’t shown similar leadership in ending the practice of indefinite detention without charge, a central and defining Bush-era abuse.

In a high-profile national security speech he gave in May, President Obama asserted that the military prison at Guantanamo held some number of terrorism suspects who could not be convicted of a crime, but who were nonetheless too dangerous to release. According to a report in the Washington Post on Saturday, the Obama administration has now drafted an executive order that would allow such prisoners to be held indefinitely without charge.

To disguise its plans for relying on a practice that is more characteristic of repressive governments than of constitutional democracies, the Obama administration has even invented its own euphemism. In his May speech, President Obama spoke only of “prolonged” detention, not of indefinite detention, or preventive detention, or detention without charge.

The label is new, but what of the substance behind it? To the many prisoners at Guantanamo who’ve already been held for more than seven years, “prolonged” may be to detention what “enhanced” was to interrogation.

Four Reasons for the Obama Administration to Rethink its Plans

It is not too late for President Obama to change course, and the reasons to do so are compelling.

1. Indefinite detention without charge is unjust, unconstitutional, and inconsistent with US law and traditions. American society has long dealt with dangerous people through criminal prosecution before competent, independent and impartial courts. US law provides ample grounds to prosecute and imprison anyone who has taken even a small step toward committing an act of terrorism.

Preventive detention, which allows imprisonment based on the suspicion that someone will take dangerous action in the future, is a radical departure from this tradition.

2. Indefinite detention without charge will bring Guantanamo on shore. The fight to close Guantanamo was meant to end the practice, unprecedented in US history, of detaining suspects arrested outside of a traditional armed conflict and holding them for years without charge or trial.

By bringing the practice of indefinite detention without charge onto US soil, the Obama administration would be closing Guantanamo in name only.

3. US reliance on indefinite detention without charge will embolden repressive governments elsewhere. Indefinite detention without charge is a hallmark of governments like China, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia, each of which hold hundreds in preventive detention, as did apartheid-era South Africa. If the United States were to continue to bypass accepted criminal justice rules, it would encourage repressive governments like these.

Already, several authoritarian rulers have pointed to US abuses at Guantanamo to justify their own actions. In Libya, notably, head of state Mu’ammar Qaddafi bragged to the Libyan public during his 2002 address to the nation that he was treating terrorist suspects “just like America is treating [them].”

4. US reliance on indefinite detention without charge will reinforce the terrorist narrative.

Holding detainees without charge as members of an enemy force risks elevating their status. Terrorists want to be seen as warriors, not criminals, and they use that status to recruit more “fighters” to their cause. A good example is admitted al Qaeda operative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who proudly embraced the designation of combatant during administrative hearings at Guantanamo, using it to compare himself to George Washington.

Far better to have fair and independent court proceedings that will stigmatize such men as terrorists, murderers and criminals.

Fort Leavenworth Could Be the New Guantanamo

President Obama criticized Guantanamo when he was running for office, but he risks replicating it now. Obama’s Guantanamo may have a different name—it may be called Fort Leavenworth or Camp Pendleton—but if it holds terrorist suspects for years without charge, its meaning will be the same.

Whether established by executive order or congressional legislation, a policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial is wrong. As a world leader and constitutional law scholar, President Obama should think hard before taking any further step to institutionalize the discredited practice that made Guantanamo such a stain on the reputation of the United States.

JOANNE MARINER is a human rights lawyer living in Paris.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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