The "Cancer of Guantánamo"
In the wake of President Obama's national security speech yesterday and implications of his proposed tweaked military commissions and so-called "preventive detention" system, Salon's Glenn Greenwald features a podcast discussion with ACLU's National Security Project attorney Ben Wizner.
It's important to acknowledge that the Obama administration has been dumped with what Ben describes as "the cancer of Guantánamo," but it's equally important to recognize that, rhetoric aside, President Obama yesterday essentially proposed making permanent some of the worst features of the Gitmo regime. Even Jack Goldsmith, who served as Assistant Attorney General under the Bush administration recently wrote, "The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations [national security policies] concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging." Even more concerning, President Obama's comments yesterday suggested that he intends to institutionalize these policies through Congress. It is absolutely essential to consider the facts, and potential long-term consequences of such a scenario.
In the his conversation with Glenn, and in an article co-authored with National Security Project director Jameel Jaffer entitled "Don't replace the old Guantánamo with a new one," Ben asserts that our existing justice system is perfectly well equipped to handle terrorism cases, and provides prosecutors with an imposing range of tools to try suspected terrorists. These tools, including overly broad "material support" statutes that criminalize association with designated terrorists groups, make it difficult to imagine that there exists a certain class of people who are too dangerous to release, but too difficult to prosecute in our federal courts.
It's worth heading over to Salon for a listen and a read.
Here's another way to think about it, as Ben stated: "If people weren't comfortable with Bush having this power, then they shouldn't be comfortable with Obama having this power, because he won't be President forever."
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:31pm
I am going to get directly to the point.
The terrorists at Gitmo do not fall under the protection of you, the ACLU. Why, these NON-AMERICANS, ARE NOT AMERICANS, so they can not be figured into American rights of protection.. Since they are NOT AMERICANS STOP your harassing of the Gitmo military staff, stop harassing the Bush Administration, and start blaming you, the ACLU for all what is wrong in America. Your morals, well you don't have morals nor a conscience, stop destroying AMERICA and all the GOD fearing people that live here.
(My use of the word GOD is protected under the 1st AMENDMENT) Here again, stop being such babies, you don't like word, over look the word or the sign, pictures, statues or the cross etc. How would you like it if I told you I hated to see the Star of David? Pretty immature.
I over look a lot of things, I am not all that religious, I believe in both science and religion. So this makes me more of an ADULT, open minded individual. It is so great being an adult and an open minded EURO-AMERICAN, I love it, it's so sad that you all can not do the same.
You do not represent AMERICA, you represent trash.You don't like it, leave!!!!! In other words, GET THE F_ _ K OUT of AMERICA!!! again, Freedom of Speech
You have no idea what torture is. If water boarding is torture than stop swimming, going to the beach don't shower. In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese knew how to torture as did the Japanese, the Soviets, Chinese, all the third world countries know how to torture a person and what we had done at Gitmo is not torture. The people that were beheaded or hung up by their hands tied behind their backs in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, now that is torture, go get those governments that allowed this. Try arguing these rights in, North Korea, China, Cuba & the former Soviet Union,. All the best would happen to the ACLU organization, no grant money from the US Government, banned, shot, be-headed sent to Siberia, all the righteous things
A.C.L.U. stands for, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, no one else only AMERICANS!!!
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:16am
Can any country in the world can escape its local laws, such as UK with its 28 day preventive detention limit, by incarcerating people on a remote island or occupied territory? If not, why does Guantanamo qualify as a safe haven for scofflaws. It appears like we have made Guantanamo a Cayman Island for law evasion. This is where we have & will stash away potential criminals for "prolonged detention". Why is this an issue. Sounds like a "deluxe Gulag" to me.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:27am
Criticism of closing Guantanamo is ill placed. I do not think we have the right to lock up the detainees, year after year, in a remote place, out of sight out of mind. Life long detention without a trial, seems to be against international law and will probably tarnish our reputation.
Detainees that have to be released should be released to their home countries. This is what the Bush Administration did. One of those released has broken his promise of for swearing violence and has become a top Al Queda operative. This kind of occurrence in Trial / Interrogation does happen once in a while, just like the judicial system. This should not frighten us in prosecuting where possible, and releasing those deemed to be innocent or for the lack of evidence.
I have a question about the status of Guantanamo. What is the legal position of this piece of Cuba? Does US own it for ever, or will it be returned to Cuba some day? In any case there are plenty of dark holes on the planet where US owns - if the idea is to stash these radio active detainees away from humanity. And how about Baghram? Is there any other civilized country that maintains a penal colony on a faraway colonized piece of land?
On the China 17, why don't we release them to their home country. In fact all of them should be dealt with the same way. Only reason I feel the administration is sweating bullets is because they are afraid of US having violated the international law in incarcerating these detainees all these years before releasing them.
It is disconcerting that we do not know nor do we want to find out where did we send the 600 odd detainees released under Bush's watch. The answer should provide valuable pointers to treat the problem with the 240 odd detainees that remain. In any case a detainee should not be set free on US soil - clarifying this point might ameliorate the concern of the sane citizens. Any freed detainees should be sent home with honor to their home countries.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:03am
The liberal lie:
I was in Iraq, Kosovo and Macedonia. I have spoken to hundreds of Muslims, including some who are Anti-American (much like the ACLU and far left liberals).
Not a single one: I REPEAT, not one, cited Guantanamo as a source of inspiration for radical muslims to rally against our great country. This is a liberal and ACLU lie. It is ironic that the far left and ACLU work to destroy the constitution on a daily basis but hide behind it every chance they get. The life of one American soldier is far more valuable than a hundred ACLU lawyers. You are pigs and are a blight on our great nation.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:08pm
It’s a cost of maintaining a constitutional democracy that sometimes dangerous people in custody who cannot be tried or convicted are and must be freed. But in a conventional war between the U.S. and another nation, it’s unquestioned that a country may detain an enemy combatant indefinitely–until exchanged or until the end of hostilities–usually a clearly defined event–irrespective of whether the individual is believed to have committed a crime. To me it follows that the constitutionality of the President’s preventive detention “Category 5″ should be judged by first addressing the question whether and to what extent the conflict between the international jihadist movement and our country partakes of the war characteristics accepted as justifying indefinite detention. Then, the differences in the nature of the conflicts need to be recognized and considered in guaranteeing the constitutional safeguards needed, including those that may not apply in the context of conventional wars between nations. This I believe is what the President is doing. I see this as consistent with applicable constitutional principles protecting civil liberties, and I agree with it.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:08pm
I cannot agree to hid the actions that take place base in the urgency to satisfy a hate agendas in obscures rooms. That is not law, that is crime. It rest in the believe that the Justice system is not good enough. No one can say that is honorable an action of abuse. GuantAnamo lesson should not be repeat.
May 24th, 2009 at 3:24am
I can't believe what I've just read. On the ACLU blog "our existing justice system is perfectly well equipped to handle terrorism cases". When was our system ever used in the same breath as 'perfect'? How many innocents are executed in the U.S. every year? Worse yet, how many terrorists would be set free to kill perhaps thousands of Americans because a prosecuter can't kidnap a witness in a foreign country and force them to testify...or because the terrorist wasn't read their Miranda rights? In these cases you can't just spew liberal ideology and call it justice. Unusual circumstances require unusual rules. Military justice should be employed before setting terrorists loose. You want one of these guys living next to you?
May 24th, 2009 at 9:41am
In today's post-9/11 world, where there is always some anxiety of possible impending attacks. Terrorism is a threat that could emerge from anywhere and at any time (like the recent New York homegrown cell or orchestrated by Al-Qaeda), however, it can be prevented if you know where to look.
Most organizations are attempting to profiling methods to identify a potential terrorist, aside the social issues, profiling can only tell you that, within a certain group of individuals, there is a higher probability of a terrorist. It cannot tell you which individual will be your next terrorist.
Still others are using "gut-instinct" to identify a potential terrorist, which is far too subjective and prone to stereotyping. This becomes clear when you read in the New York Post that "New York police officers are to be on the lookout for men who appear freshly shaven with cuts or nicks -- which could indicate a beard has just been removed -- as well as anyone with ill-fitting uniforms or 'unfamiliar forms' of identification." You realized immediately that the NYPD is grasping at straws.
Without a reliable measurement tool, most security officials are forced to rely on intuition to identify and prevent terrorist activity. Rather than require officials to place their reputations or careers at risk based on a "gut instinct," an organization's security can apply Aggression Management® Intervention System to identify and measure a potential terrorist.
If you would like to learn how to identify a terrorist or murder/suicide read the free white paper that illustrates what we are already doing in higher education. Once read we would be happy to answer any reasonable questions you may have. http://www.aggressionmanagement.com/Higher_Education/
May 25th, 2009 at 8:10pm
You people should just kiss off or go find somewhere else to live...like Iran or Syria....go for it, dickheads....
May 26th, 2009 at 3:31pm
Who does Obama think he is,Joe Stalin.
From condoning torture to his crusade in Afganistan Obama has acted like a Cheney with a good speechwriter.
Furthermore at least in Stalin's Russia
people accused of terrorism were given
fixed setences although the interogation techniques were quite similar to those that Cheney and the wing nuts would approve of.
As for anybody moving to Iran I should think many of the wing nuts would actualy feel right at home in such a theocratic police state.For example I bet they would love the laws their against Gays.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:58am
This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone. The above thought is smart and doesn’t require any further addition. It’s perfect thought from my side.
Adam
mls
May 28th, 2009 at 2:59am
This is a great work. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone. The above thought is smart and doesn’t require any further addition. It’s perfect thought from my side.
Adam
mls
May 28th, 2009 at 3:47pm
Is the ACLU censoring comments? Mine (innocuous, in my opinion, given what's happening here in the good ol' USA) have been held for almost 2 days now. (I submitted one to this thread and one to another.)
I'll consider leaving something to the ACLU in my will when the ACLU steps up to the plate and tackles the egregious practices of warrantless surveillance, sneak 'n peak searches, and harassment of good, loyal, law-abiding American citizens.
And to those who say that it's okay, if one has nothing to hide? Just wait until you've been "targeted" for some benign and unknown reason. If it could happen to me, it could happen to anyone. Listen up, folks -- we now live in a country where apparently anything goes.
The rule of law is dead and the Constitution pretty meaningless when anyone (with the "say so" of someone powerful) can be put on a list somewhere for ongoing surveillance and harassment (and God-only-knows what else.) I'm a white, law-abiding R.N. -I'm not even remotely close to being a criminal. And I'm definitely not alone.
Fascism has indeed come to America. Who is going to help?
May 29th, 2009 at 3:03am
We successfully tried, convicted and imprisoned many many terrorists prior to 9/11. We did it without great national fear or releasing them in kindergarten classes across America.
So what changed? It was the same 9/11. It traumatized America and caused our politicians to fear the citizens and their demand for action. It also enabled the politicians to impose their illegal wars, and take away many of our rights. It gave the politicians the courage to pass laws that let the government spy on us illegally.
Our government abandoned our Constitution and Bill of Rights for illegal detention in political gulags. We tortured beyond torture. We now still propose permanent detention, "better justice provisions in new courts, and looking the other way at law breakers giving them the spurious defense of I was just following orders. Bah
Americans are not going to be governed by fear much longer. They will wake up one day soon and say, "What are you doing with MY Constitution, My Bill of Rights? What are you doing with the reputation of MY country?
May 29th, 2009 at 11:14am
The Obama administration and the ACLU is completly wrong in it's stance of Gitmo. Closing it would only bring greater harm to the citizens of America. It's a fine facility that is prefectly suitable to hold these detainees. We just need to revamp its image and leave the terrorist there instead of bringing them here to America where there warped ideals can manifest in our prison systems and recuit new members. Some of the biggest gangs in America are ran from inside prisons. Do the Obama administration or the ACLU think these terrorist wouldn't be capible of the same??? Recuiting and instructing followers to carry acts of terrorism out right here, by our own people. It's crazy to even question putting these terrorists in our prisons. Just leave Gitmo open and revamp its image.
God help the USA!!
May 29th, 2009 at 3:51pm
The man has boxed himself into a corner. You can sum up his difficulty in 3 simple points.
1. He cares about the rule of law. He said so standing in front of the Constitution the other day, and he’s a constitutional lawyer. He’s said it before.
2. The law is entirely – 100% - a matter of punishing people who have committed crimes in the past. The only direction the law ever looks is back into the past. It never looks ahead to punish you for what you may do in the future. To take up the rule of law is precisely to turn your face to the past. This is plain fact, beyond dispute or debate.
3. But this man would like to look forward into the future, not back into the past. Instead of punishing people in the Bush administration for crimes they commited in the past, he wants to punish other people for crimes they may commit in the future. He’ll need to punish them without a trial, since a court of law knows nothing about trying people for what they may do in the future.
You can buy either 1 or 3. But in the light of 2, you can’t buy them both. If you care about the rule of law, you need to give up 3. If you want to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, that’s your only option.
The man needs our help, even more than he did during the election.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:53pm
U.S. Constitution Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED, shall exist within the United States, or ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THEIR JURISDICTION (GITMO).
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I have heard Dick Cheney repeatedly state that the prisoners at GITMO are a valuable commodity, ie information. Services for which they are not receiving compensation. These same detainees appear to have been held at GITMO, a territory under legal U.S.
jurisdiction, for crimes for which they have not been duly convicted.
Aren't these Bush - Cheney doctrines a direct violation of the 13th amendment of the U.S. Constitution? We need to use our established due process to deal legally with these prisoners. Imprison those found guilty through trial and due conviction, qualify those that are enemy combatants, and return those to the appropriate nationality for legal disposition or rehabilitation. The ultimate goal should be ending the establishment of U.S. gulags and illegal torture camps.
May 31st, 2009 at 12:52am
Thank you ACLU for defending the US Constitution and helping to restore our Civil Liberties in our country that too many citizens that were born and raised here have turned a blind eye to those similar citizens that have been tearing it apart piece by piece and slowly destroying the foundation of what this country was based on from the begining.
This country will never become or be what our forefathers intended it to be as long as those who feel that controlling the people of this country is the only solution to protecting the safety of the people.
Jun 2nd, 2009 at 12:20pm
SUPPORTER, you hit the nail right on the head "citizen that were born and raised here". However the aclu "supports baby killers, murderers in prison, non-citizen criminals, all in the name of JUSTICE. They do not support the military, death penalty, or the constitutional rights of hard working law abiding CITIZENS. Do you really think that a covicted murderer's life is worth more than that of a baby. Yet the aclu would have you think so. They rally for baby killing (aka abortion). Then turn around and try to save a POS MURDERER AND RAPIST. Think about it.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
THE LAND OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE
Post new comment