|
|
May 25, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Closing GuantanamoPosted on Oct 31, 2008
The U.S. government’s failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center for alleged terrorists continues to haunt and color our standing in the world. Barack Obama and John McCain both endorsed closing the facility. Even President George W. Bush has been known to utter such a heretical idea, and some of his top aides have expressed similar sentiments. In 2006, Bush said, “I’d like to close Guantanamo, but I also recognize that we’re holding some people that are darn dangerous, and that we better have a plan to deal with them in our courts.” As the old Kentucky political prescription says, watch the way he acts, not the way he talks. Whatever he meant, Bush now clearly has reversed himself and has chosen to do nothing. Guantanamo prison will not close on his watch; there are no plans “to deal” with the detainees “in our courts.” As to his “war on terror,” Bush concedes nothing. Some brave or disgusted soul somewhere in the bureaucratic maze has leaked the fact that the president ignored numerous options for closing the prison. On Oct. 17, 2008, the Financial Times reported that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pushed the idea, but the Justice Department reportedly opposed moving the prisoners to American bases or prisons. You would have to be on another planet to be unaware of the not-so-subtle hands of Vice President Dick Cheney and his staff in all this. According to The New York Times, Cheney and his staff successfully argued that maintaining Guantanamo’s active status is necessary to validate the administration’s policy on terrorists. In any event, the effect is to maintain the status quo—in this case, maintaining a facility that has earned us only international enmity. Criticism from “Old Europe” is to be expected, but now that Tony Blair is gone, our British allies have rejected “the Guantanamo model.” Stella Rimington, the former director general of England’s domestic intelligence agency, voiced hope that the next American president would ratchet down the talk of a “war on terror,” even expressing the sacrilegious notion that there has been a huge overreaction to 9/11. One official who has prosecuted terrorism trials for several years rejected any notion of a “British Guantanamo” where defendants’ rights would be totally absent. Imagine—our British cousins maintain their faith in the Magna Carta. Advertisement After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, we demonstrated that our legal system could proceed properly under existing laws and constitutional practice. Four conspirators were convicted a year later, and two more followed in 1997. Ramzi Mohammed Yousef, the alleged ringleader, and the others received life sentences, with no chance for parole. The system worked. Why has there been such resistance for the Guantanamo detainees? Does the military have a vested interest in conducting military trials? The loathsome tales of torture, abuse, sodomy and murder that emerged from the Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 resulted in convictions of low-level Army guards. Those who ordered or condoned such policies never have been charged. In the case of Guantanamo, the president, his chief Cabinet officers and their underlings, and the military, from the Joint Chiefs to the actual warders on the ground, unquestionably bear responsibility for the abuse—the physical and mental abuse of prisoners and the abuse against our constitutional system. The Bush administration and the military initiated the situation, and they willingly, even enthusiastically, provided ideas and machinery that continue to keep the prison running. Reports of Guantanamo’s conditions have circulated widely on the Internet; again, we are informed with little thanks to the “mainstream” media. Our supposedly ever-vigilant media simply have allowed the news to fade into the mists of history. Bureaucratic drift and inertia grip the problem of resolving Guantanamo’s status. According to The New York Times, the perennial anonymous “senior administration official” (Gates or Rice?) could see little if any prospect of closing the prison. He/she said that the victorious presidential candidate would find it hard to fulfill his campaign promise to close the base. “This may not be the ideal answer, but what we are trying to do is work with the system we’ve got,” the official said. Passivity with a vengeance, it seems. George W. Bush is apparently confident that history will vindicate him. He will be gone in three months, and he has decided to pass the buck in time-honored fashion and saddle his successor with cleaning up his mess. He will not retreat, and he obviously will not make any decisions that might correct his policies or support criticism of them. His inaction on Guantanamo is emblematic. He fiddles while the global banking system cries for vigorous governmental action and an end to free-market nonsense. He fiddles while our international prestige—not to mention our reputation—goes up in smoke.  TAGS:
|
Marching in Chicago: Resisting Rahm Emanuel’s Neoliberal Savagery
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By SusanSunflower, November 3, 2008 at 11:30 am Link to this comment
Yes, the “war on terror” is a war on “bad thoughts” and people who think bad thoughts ... It’s insidious and very dangerous ... and betrays not only FEAR but vulnerability ... and most people seem to have bought most of it ... truly amazing that 19 guys and 4 airplanes 7 years ago could have led to this ...
=========================================================
One of the powerful reasons to focus on Guantanamo is that it’s one of those non-partisan, hardly controversial “side of the angels” issues, that is SAFE and not “extreme” ... very important to those whose political consciousness is newly awakened and who are inexperienced in having opinions ...
This isn’t anarchists in the Twin Cities, it’s not even Code Pink or Raging Grannies ... this is much safer, a “cause” that is easy to defend ... by individuals, by local peace and church groups ...
it’s “entry level” ... much as SDS was early on ... people got involved and received an education, talked, read books, argued and many became radicalized ... a desire to not have your life screwed over by the draft ... morphed—FOR SOME—into an appreciation of why the war was morally wrong ...etc.
I cannot believe how the wars have disappeared from campaign ... and gitmo and FISA ... my impression of many Obama supporters is that their interest in issues—rather than personalities—is very thin.
A Gitmo campaign might help keep some of them involved after the star dust is gone.
Besides, I want to close Gitmo ... I take Gitmo personally, y’know?
Report thisBy KDelphi, November 3, 2008 at 9:38 am Link to this comment
Yes—I havent heard much about it—the war on terror is the real problem.
If Wall St. whores (with all due respect to people who truly provide a service) are “terrified” at the idea of “Obama’s socialism”, then we are far worse off than I had thought. Obviously it is not socialism, but, I heard a neighbor say he was a “communist”. After “Are you crazy??...” he did not want to listen anymore. And why even try? If he is afraid of Obama, what woudl he think of a Socialist?
Peace Voter is backing McKinney. Code Pink is backing Obama and Sheehan. It seemt that the whole world is backing Obama.
It must be easier to worshiop him from afar, when you will not have to live under his policies. I hear people from Canad and UK and EU, al for Obama.
Are they for increasing their military budgets, even as their working classes starve? Are they ready to give up single payer health care? Are they ready to be detained for no jsut cause by their PM? To have their phones, mail and internet spied on?
I do not think that they are.
Report thisBy Folktruther, November 3, 2008 at 9:24 am Link to this comment
Susan, what it is after the election tomorrow is consciousness raising time. The young naive voters attracted to the electoral process must understand that Obiden is going to betray them, with Dem-Gop support.
The worst thing that can happen is not that Obama waffles and hesitates, but that he adopts Bushite policies, which he is going to do. Indeed, he is going to INCREASE military expenditures and wars and thus is to the right of Bush.
His campaign promises to the population (but not to the rich and powerful) are worthless. He stated he was going to campaign on public funds, whe he betrayed. He stated he was going to filibuster against lawless spying on the American population, and voted for it and against the filibuster. He lobbied for the bailout swindle that ripped off the American people, raising a $150 million in a month.
The American people have to learn to see what is in plain sight but subverts what they are told in the learned and mass media. This will not be done by a ‘non-partisan’ mass movement, whatever that is, but by a highly partisan movement that supports people against power. And this can only be done by reject the American mainsteam narrative, whith is a tapistry of bullshit from beginning to end.
The American people must understand that they are being attacked by the American power structure and must mobilize to defend themselves.
Report thisBy SusanSunflower, November 2, 2008 at 8:47 pm Link to this comment
I would prefer to have Obama tested sooner rather than later ... I am waiting expectantly to see what the residual power of “Obama nation” will be.
I already see—in anticipation of “victory”—the beginnings of “re-framing” and an—oh gosh, not really—internal Democratic party power struggle.
Forgive me, I’m a bit grouchy. I’ve received 6 calls from the Obama campaign in the last 24 hours—only one a recording. I don’t like Barack Obama much ... back in June, I liked him less than I “liked” Hillary Clinton ... I have little confidence and periodic deep forboding regardig what an Obama victory might mean ... but regardless of Obama the “man” ...
What I do hope can be accomplished by a concerted “populist” effort to close Gitmo is a “which side are you on” “put your money where your mouth is” “what’s the point in electing candidates if they fail to respond to their constituency” ... put up or shut up ..
which I hope—in the worst case scenario in which Obama waffles or distracts—will be a clue-stick that just because Obama isn’t “the solution”, it’s not “fold the tent and hibernate” time in America.
No, I don’t like Obama much ... No, I don’t expect much ... That’s why I think this is the RIGHT TIME for a mass mobilization / coalition / nonpartisan effort to close Gitmo.
After all, he’s already “promised” he would (or some reasonable facsimile of a promise)—No?
Report thisBy Folktruther, November 2, 2008 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment
Gitmo isn’t the problem; the War on Terrorism is. If you are going to invade countries and the people fight back, you are going to have to torture. One tortures not to gain information: information is very time-dependant and most of the prisoners don’t have any. Indeed, they are rounded up simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and were turned in for a bounty.
But they are tortured. Because the real purpose is not to gain information but to intimidate the population. Gitmo is not there to intimidate the prisoners, but to intimidate the American people and accustom us to the brutality of the War on Terrorism.
Consequently it doesn’t matter whether they are guilty of anything or not from the perspective of the American power system. And it doesn’t matter how young they are. There was a children’s wing at Gitmo.
Focusing attention on Gitmo is a trap of fake progressive leaders and truthers. It can be abolished, as many TD commenters have pointed out, and the other prisons and American torturers around the world will continue. That Gitmo mars the prestige of the American power system is a POSTIVE virtue, as long as the US maintains the brutality policies of mass murder, arbitrary imprisonment, and torture.
That IS the American power system now. The Bushites conducted a counterrevolution to rule by lawless violence and deceit, and that lwaless violence is directed primarily at the American people.
WE are the Terrorists they are talking about and it is US they want to, and do, intimindate with torture and murder.
It is the War on Terrorism that we must abolish not Gitmo alone. And both the Gop and Dem leaders support it. Including Obiden.
Report thisBy SusanSunflower, November 2, 2008 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment
One of the big (gigantic) problems with the most often cited reason for Gitmo is the overwhelming evil of these prisoners and their (presumed) at-large confederates.
This makes a mockery of the entire Department of Homeland Security—I live in Colorado, home of the federal supermax prison in, irrc, Florence.
The idea that these prisoners need to be held in some ultimately secure facility is simply bullshit.
If the conditions and the security at any of America’s Supermax prison is “inadequate” ... if our internal intelligence and surveillance is not deemed adequate—after 7 years—to intercept and interdict some “raid on entebbe” terrorist strike to liberate these most-dangerous-people ... well, ...
Yes, the supermax prisons are inhuman and terrible places built on some futuristic wet-dream of ultimate law enforcement.
The ONLY reason these prisoners (including the black op site prisoners) are keep beyond American soil to keep them out of reach of American justice (such as it is and has become) ...
Gitmo is a raised-middle-finger to the rest of the world ... the black-op site have historical precendent and their own sordid multinational history ... one is in-your-face, the other is CIA—2-ton canary, anywhere it wants, black-ops as usual, I’m afraid.
Report thisBy KDelphi, November 2, 2008 at 10:48 am Link to this comment
Susan—yes! That is a good point. GITMO was just “invented” (many would say, pulled out of their arse) as a place to warehouse people who were considered “undesirables”—they even had to invent a new “name” for them—enemy combatants”, which, I think , was previously saved for un-uniformed people on the battlefields. Most of these people were not from battlefields, and if they were, should have been POWs.
We already had years of military law and UN law to guide us—even those need to be corrected! Yes, I worked in a minimum security prison for awhile—actually, an internship. Even with these simple pot smokers and thieves, the treament was terrible. The guards were pigs, but, as studies show, when you put a person in that position , even decent people tend to act like SS!
Report thisBy SusanSunflower, November 2, 2008 at 8:37 am Link to this comment
Gitmo was created for the sole purpose of violating laws that would have applied if these prisoners were held on American soil ... ditto Diego Garcia and all of the other black op sites ... where we use our “allies” and/or independent contractors to violate the “rule of engagement” and laws that would apply to American miliary and intelligence personnel ...
Like the pedophile who vacations in South East Asia to get his fill of kiddie sex ... Ironically, Ashcroft regime made that pedophile prosecutable in the AMERICAN justice system for engaging in activities regardless of the legality or illegality of the acts under the laws of the country in which the “crimes” were committed ...
I’m not asking for a discussion of the sociopolitical aspects of prostitution and/or sex slavery or kiddie prostitution ... just pointing out the irony that Ashcroft’s department of justice made it possible to prosecute Americans for behavior conducted abroad, regardless of the legality of the acts in country where they occurred ... smoking hashish in Nepal, snorting heroin in Afghanistan ... “crimes” about which, like kiddie prostitution, the local—often corrupt—authorities turn a blind eye when committed by wealthy tourist types.
next we can tackle the problem of “secret prisoners” languishing on American soil ... and what used to be clear abuse of power, violation of international standards for human rights and treatment of prisoners.
Report thisBy Joe, November 1, 2008 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Am I the only one who finds the Guantanamo Bay talk kind of silly?
It seems that there are dozens of POW prisons called “Black Sites” that are much much worse. We don’t even say how many prisoners we have, who they are, what they supposedly did, where they are, ect.
So Guantanamo seems fairly law abiding in comparison.
Report thisBy KDelphi, November 1, 2008 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment
Paul—Dream on…the Dems (and GOP) will never have the balls to do that. They wil go home to (as Bush put it) “replenish the coffers”.
He’s only got $25 million now.
Report thisBy Big B, November 1, 2008 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment
We may just look back in 20 or 30 years and realize that Guantanamo was the begining of our end.
Report thisBy KDelphi, November 1, 2008 at 12:16 pm Link to this comment
elsanto666—No..closing ALL of them is good..
Discontinuing our occupation of foreign land is good. Cutting our military budget is good. Bringing home our military—good.
Being a force for peace and justice in the world—priceless.
I dont know if anyone ever take us seriously again, though.
Thanks, Dubya.
Report thisBy Expat, November 1, 2008 at 11:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I remember Stanley Kutler from the Watergate hearings. What he says about Guantanamo applies equally to all of the political prisons run by the US or its surrogates around the world.
It is interesting that even someone who saw up close the ultimate abuse of power, the betrayal of the American people by Richard Nixon, cannot put the Bush offense into words.
“Fiddling!” Fiddling is what Nero did. But Nero did not cross the Rubicon. Bush personifies the worst aspects of every one of the Caesars, right down to the perversion.
What Bush has done is so vast and so terrible that our heads explode just trying to comprehend it. To flip around the joke about the blind people and the elephant, we intentionally latch on to one segment or another of the story in order to avoid seeing the whole loathsome mess.
Report thisBy KDelphi, November 1, 2008 at 11:06 am Link to this comment
Big Wes—I have my doubts about that. Hell, even McCain WAS for closing GITMO (the “old” mccain)
I think that it wil be like “lovers of Teddy Roosevelt” or those who stil think Reagan was a ‘great man”. His disciples wil be fewer—but most people will never forget the damage he has done—it wil be with us forever.
Report thisBy elsanto666, November 1, 2008 at 9:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
ok, the US closes GITMO and what next?
Report thisThere are other secret prisons, including on navy ships that you never mention. I don’t understand your rationale:
Secret prisons = bad
closing GITMO (and GITMO only) = good….
By PatrickHenry, November 1, 2008 at 7:47 am Link to this comment
We need to close Guantanamo, clean up our mess, restore full diplomatic relations (if Cuba will have us) and reestablish free trade with our close neighbor.
I believe an apology on behalf of the past U.S. administrations is in order for the next president, if he is man enough to give it.
Report thisBy Paul, November 1, 2008 at 7:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Maybe, they should leave it open, so there will be somewhere to keep W. and Cheney’s friends, later.
Report thisBy Fahrenheit 451, November 1, 2008 at 4:49 am Link to this comment
Guantanamo is the antithesis of everything the U.S. is “supposed” to stand for. Kinda shows us for the hypocrites we are. And, the world has noticed.
Report thisBy Big Wes, November 1, 2008 at 4:37 am Link to this comment
Of course history will vindicate W. News Corp will buy up all of the text book publishers and they’ll subtly rewrite history.
Report thisBy KDelphi, October 31, 2008 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment
Anyone know how Obama feels about closing GITMO?
Cause, we really , really need to.
Report this