LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.Best Political Blog Winner, 2007 Webby Awards, People's Voice and Jury.   Holiday Scheer! Exclusive Truthdig Gifts for the Holidays
 
December 5, 2008
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

‘Daily Show’: Is MSNBC the New Fox News?

Chevron in the White House

Will Obama Stay the Course?

Was There Any Point to the Bloodshed in Mumbai?

Gates Was ‘Hoping the Question Would Never Be Popped’

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Bush the Infallible
 * NEW! * Those Other Elections

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101
Vetting Sarah Palin

Truthdig Bazaar
The Populist Vision

The Populist Vision

By Charles Postel
$28.00

more items

 
Reports

Marie Cocco: Our Most Vulgar Instinct

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Dec 7, 2006

By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON—The climax of the Iraq Study Group is an anticlimactic acknowledgement of what the American public knows and what even the president, in his own blinkered indignation, acknowledges. There is to be no graceful exit from Iraq.

The Democratic takeover of Congress, the agitation among Republicans who do not wish to be next to fall on the president’s sword, and the upcoming ascension of Robert “We’re-Not-Winning” Gates to head the Pentagon, all point to a messy and prolonged departure as the least-worst option. The study group provides a potential pathway out of Iraq, however dimly lit.

But who will lead us out of Cuba?

As a foreign policy debacle, the Bush administration’s detention and mistreatment of alleged terrorists—symbolized in its military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba—is second only to the Iraq entanglement for its effect of having set much of the world, especially Muslims, against us. Ending the shame of Guantanamo does not have the urgency of sparing American troops from the carnage in Iraq. But repairing the damage of the Bush years—a long-term project now at last under way—requires it.

A first step is at hand in legislation promoted by Democratic Sens. Chris Dodd and Patrick Leahy. They seek to undo some of the worst of the assaults on the Constitution, and on America’s moral standing, contained in the pre-election legislation on military commissions.

In essence, the Military Commissions Act provided congressional approval of the Bush administration’s malfeasance. It wiped out any chance for non-citizens held by the U.S. anywhere in the world to challenge their detentions or demand evidence for them. It gave the president authority to declare any person (including a U.S. citizen) to be an “unlawful enemy combatant,” even if that person has never taken up arms. An “unlawful enemy combatant” can include any person who has “purposefully and materially supported” those who committed hostilities. The vagueness could ensnare anyone, for example, who has donated to a charity that later turns out to have terrorist ties.

The Dodd measure would restore the ancient right of habeas corpus to detainees so that they can contest their confinement. It would narrow the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to include only those who directly participate in hostilities, the definition enshrined in international law. The military’s own reviews of detainee cases showed that more than half of the so-called “combatants” imprisoned at Guantanamo committed no hostile act against U.S. or coalition forces, according to an ongoing study of government documents by Seton Hall University Law School. Most were found only to have some unspecified “association” with individuals or groups purported to have terrorist links.

The “combatant status review tribunals”—the Pentagon’s term for the process it uses to declare someone an unlawful enemy combatant—are themselves a frightening farce. The latest Seton Hall review of official tribunal transcripts, published last month, shows that the government produced no witnesses at any hearing. It relied mostly on classified evidence that was considered conclusive—and which the detainee could not see. In 96 percent of the cases, authorities produced no documentary evidence for a detainee to review before his hearing. All requests by detainees to summon witnesses other than fellow prisoners at Guantanamo were denied.

Yet this is the only procedure the administration intends for all but about 80 of the 430 people currently held at Guantanamo. Only those charged with violating the laws of war or other grave offenses are to be tried in the newly authorized military commissions, according to a Pentagon spokesman, Cmdr. J.D. Gordon.

The rest languish, as U.S. authorities try to get their home countries or other nations to take them off our own soiled hands. There is to be no graceful exit from Guantanamo. “The question of what we do with Guantanamo is a huge question that nobody’s tackled so far,” says Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch.

Newly empowered Democrats must delve into that which has been left officially unexamined for more than four years: Who is at the prison? Of what, exactly, are they accused? How many were rounded up by bounty hunters or captured far from any battlefield?

The Dodd measure would partly solve the problem of the detainees’ legal rights if, in fact, it could pass and then survive a presidential veto. But nothing will salvage America’s reputation, short of closing the prison that stands as a monument to our most vulgar instinct. 

Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco@washpost.com.

Email Newsletter

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.

Previous item: Joe Conason: From Gates, Belated Truths About Iraq

Next item: Blood Diamonds Are Forever

Jump to Comments

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By click212, December 17, 2006 at 5:51 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree with John Butterfield. We need to get out of Cuba. Remaining there is wrong. We no longer need to be there for military purposes.

We can plant our fat ases in Puerto Rico where we are now anyway.

Report this

By Ga, December 7, 2006 at 7:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

We are scared.

And people really think that we have to beat information out of people in order to protect ourselves.

Although all the signs were there—we knew it was Bin Laden hours after 9/11—but we never expected/thought we would be attacked. We thought we were safe here at home.

No.

The arrogant guy in the neighborhood who pushes everyone around will eventually be pushed back.

Of course, the real debate is, What are we going to do to stave off further attacks? Are we going to continue a path of hegemony and vigilantism? Or are we going to realize that we need to fess up to our past offenses and to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries under the vile notion that we can force every other country to be like us?

In order to stave off further attacks we need to stave off our “forcing our will on others.”

Report this

By kid memphis, December 7, 2006 at 2:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

the truth is the whole last six years must be recognized as a time we let go of civilization and a spoiled sadistic brat who wanted to do everything that progressives implored us not to do took over because his family ran the cia and could steal the whole country.
civilization=progressivism. we wanted to go all cynical and heavy metal, but we now must learn our lesson that sincerity and decency are sacred, and the imprisonment of gw and seizure of his family’s ill gotten assets will be our promise to ourselves that we recognize this.

Report this

By KISS, December 7, 2006 at 6:44 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Recognizing the Geneva Conventional rights of POWs would go a long way in keeping our soldiers from torture and right of civility.
Again, Our Christian president has turned away from his bible for the barbarian way.

Report this

By John F. Butterfield, December 7, 2006 at 6:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

We should have left Guantanamo long ago. Certainly the fiction that Guantanamo is needed to protect our Panama Canal can no longer be sustained. The mindset that has kept us there is the same mindset that has promoted our dispicable behavior.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox

Privacy Policy

 
Click here to advertise with Truthdig
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.