FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama’s New Euphemism

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
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail