Share

Obama's Guantánamo Appeasement Plan

by: Marjorie Cohn, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
A US trooper enters the Guantánamo Bay prison at dawn. (Photo: AP)

    Two days after his inauguration, President Obama pledged to close Guantánamo within one year. The Republicans, led by Senators John McCain, Mitch McConnell and Pat Roberts, immediately launched a concerted campaign to assail the new president. They claimed his plan would release dangerous terrorists into US communities and allow released terrorists to resume fighting against our troops. Fox News agitator Sean Hannity and Bush team players like torture-memo lawyer John Yoo filled the airwaves and print media with paranoia.

    The Republican attacks were bogus. A 2008 McClatchy investigation revealed that the overwhelming majority of Guantánamo detainees taken into custody in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan and Pakistan were innocent of wrongdoing or bit players with little intelligence value. A substantial number of those prisoners were literally sold to US officials in exchange for bounty payments offered by the US military. A Seton Hall Law Center report has debunked Pentagon claims that many released detainees have "returned to the fight." And no one has ever escaped from one of the US super-max prisons, which house hundreds of people convicted of terrorist offenses.

    The Republicans have continued to oppose the effort to close Guantánamo. In an attempt to burnish his image and forestall war crimes charges, Dick Cheney now leads the charge, making ubiquitous attacks on Mr. Obama. Keeping Guantánamo open is "important," Cheney declares. He claims that closing Guantánamo would endanger Americans, and warns that if detainees are brought to the United States, they would "acquire all kinds of legal rights." Mr. Obama is also taking heat from the intelligence community. Those officials, like Cheney, seek to justify what they did under the Bush regime.

    And now even the Democrats are piling on the bandwagon. Reacting defensively to the Republican attack campaign, the Senate voted 90 to 6 to deny Mr. Obama funds to close Guantánamo until he comes up with a "plan" for relocating the detainees there. "We spent hundreds of millions of dollars building an appropriate facility with all security precautions on Guantánamo to try these cases," said Democratic Sen. Jim Webb on ABC News. "I do not believe they should be tried in the United States," he added.

    The pressure has caused Mr. Obama to buckle. Timed to coincide with a Cheney speech to the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Obama announced an appeasement plan to deal with the 240 remaining Guantánamo detainees. Parts of his plan would threaten the very foundation of our legal system - that no one should be held in custody if he has committed no crime. These are Mr. Obama's five categories for disposition of detainees once Guantánamo is closed:

    1) Those who violated the laws of war will be tried in military commissions.

    Mr. Obama's plan would backtrack on an early promise to shut down the military commissions. Mr. Obama now claims that such commissions can be fair because they will no longer permit the use of evidence obtained by cruel, inhuman or degrading interrogation methods. He fails to mention, however, that the Pentagon is using "clean teams" to re-interrogate people who were previously interrogated using the prohibited methods. When they once again give the same information, it miraculously becomes untainted. Mr. Obama also fails to acknowledge that those tried in the military commissions are forbidden from seeing all the evidence against them, a violation of the bedrock principle that the accused must have an opportunity to confront his accusers.

    Even the US Supreme Court has disagreed with this part of Mr. Obama's proposed plan of action. In Ex parte Milligan, the Supreme Court declared military trials of civilians to be unconstitutional if civil courts are available.

    Prisoners falling in this category should be tried in the courts of the United States, because the laws of war are actually part of US law. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. The Geneva Conventions and the Hague Convention, which the United States has ratified, contain the laws of war.

    2) Those who have been ordered released from Guantánamo will remain in custody.

    Seventeen Uighurs from China were ordered released after they were found not to be enemy combatants. But they continue to languish in custody because they would be imperiled if returned to China, which considers them enemies of the state. Suggestions that they be brought to the United States have been met with paranoid NIMBY (not in my backyard!) protestations. So, under Mr. Obama's plan, they will remain incarcerated in a state of legal limbo.

    3) Those who cannot be prosecuted yet "pose a clear danger to the American people" will remain in custody with no right to legal process of any kind.

    These are people who have never been charged with a crime. Mr. Obama did not say why they cannot be prosecuted. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates claims as many as 100 people may fall into this category. Included in this group are those who have "expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden." They will suffer "prolonged detention."

    Mr. Obama's plan for "prolonged detention" is nothing more than a newly-coined phrase for "preventive detention," a policy that harks back to the bad old days of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and the internment of people of Japanese extraction in the 1940s. If Mr. Obama succeeds in convincing Congress to legalize "prolonged detention," the United States will continue to be a pariah state among justice-loving nations. The US Congress, still rendered catatonic by post-9/11 rhetoric, will probably capitulate along with Mr. Obama.

    Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, noted that Mr. Obama's new system of preventive detention will just "move Guantánamo to a new location and give it a new name."

    4) Those who can be safely transferred to other countries will be transferred.

    Mr. Obama noted that 50 men fall into this category. It is unclear what will happen to them when they reach their destinations.

    5) Those who violated US criminal laws will be tried in federal courts.

    Mr. Obama cited the examples of Ramzi Yousef, who tried to blow up the World Trade Center, and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was identified as the twentieth 9/11 hijacker. Both were tried and convicted in US courts and both are serving life sentences.

    This is the only clearly acceptable part of Mr. Obama's plan. All detainees slated to remain in custody should be placed into this category. The federal courts provide due process as required by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which does not limit due process rights to US citizens: "No person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

    The federal courts are well suited to deal with accused terrorists. Indeed, federal judges who have presided over such cases say that the Classified Information Procedures Act can effectively protect classified intelligence in federal court trials.

    If Mr. Obama proceeds with the plan he announced this week he will empower those who point to US hypocrisy on human rights as a justification to do us harm. Mr. Obama's capitulation to the intelligence gurus and the right-wing attack dogs will not only imperil the rule of law; it will actually make us more vulnerable to future acts of terrorism.

  

»


Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She is the author of "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law" and co-author of "Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent." Her anthology, "The United States of Torture: America's Past and Present Policy of Interrogation and Abuse," will be published next year by NYU Press. See www.marjoriecohn.com.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The article says it all,

The article says it all, really. It's worth adding one more voice to the disgust at Obama's cave-in. Barack: where the hell is the "change we need?"

But, but, . . . what about

But, but, . . . what about all of our guilty Senators and Representatives, not to mention a former President and Vice-President? If we were to actually try these prisoners in a court, why, the crimes of the aforementioned would undoubtedly be revealed! And who knows what that could lead to. Why, someone might even want to prosecute THEM!

Obama is right. It's much better to just flush that silly old Constitution down the drain and forget about it. That way we can preserve our Aristocracy and those dumb old laws won't apply to them like they do to the rest of us.

When the Nazis came for the

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. Then they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. Then they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest; I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

What ever happened to the

What ever happened to the idea of these people being prisoners of war? They should have been all along, and if they were there would be no nonsense of trying them in courts. When a person is captured on the battle field how can there possibly be a chain of evidence that could be used to convict them of any crime. Bush should have called them POWs but he didn't so he would be free to water board them however, now that we've banned that business why not treat them as POWs?

Obama, you make me so tired.

Obama, you make me so tired.

I didn't expect anything

I didn't expect anything from former Senator Obama after he voted to reauthorize FISA. I knew then he had nothing but contempt for the Constitution. Since he's been in the White House, he's proven me right again and again. I tried to warn my friends who were Obama supporters that he was a stealth candidate hand-groomed by the elite, but they said I was too cynical about the American political cesspool to see that he was "different." Nowadays, they're all awakening to the extent to which they were conned and I don't hesitate to rub their noses in their folly. He's spineless, most likely corrupt, and not the president this nation so desperately needs - which is why I now refer to him always as "former Senator" Obama.

Shame, shame on you Mr.

Shame, shame on you Mr. Obama. You've let us down with your lies. Who got to you? Or, were you always one of THEM.

Deeply disappointed in

Deeply disappointed in Obama. Apparently all we voted for was a lot of hot air.

Obama needs to obey the

Obama needs to obey the law:charge, prosecute and if no evidence, release. The changing of terms is also PR to mislead, for sure: "prolonged detention" is new jargon for illegal lock-em up. It's wonderful to have legal minds like Marjorie Cohn and Michael Ratner. I won't list the "others": the torture memo folks. I really did like one of the opening sentences about Cheney taking a position so he can cover his you-know-what because he is a war criminal (alleged). Great article.

That comment about first

That comment about first they came for....was made by Pastor Martin Niemuller who died in the 1990's I wonder where is the outrage about torture and gulags in our name? I wonder that people do not realize that they are only as free as the most vulnerable and invisible among us. It is just our laws and the sanctity of our constitution that make us free. As we willing give up freedoms for others, we become that much more vulnerable to being the next ones "they come for..."

The point of this article is

The point of this article is that Obama is apparently reneging on his promise to close Gitmo. I think this is understandable given the apparent spinelessness of his democrat allies in Congress who are denying the funding to do so. The real problem is that the remaining prisoners can not be released anywhere (much less in the US) until the war is over but, given the existing talk about trying them in US courts, that is exactly what is likely to happen because of the illegal nature of the evidence. So if you feel that Obama is to blame for this situation (as apparently many commentators here do) then you are misdirecting your criticisms. They should instead be directed to those democrats in Congress (like Mz Pelosi) who have already announced that these POWs are not welcomed in their districts.

Great disappointment. The

Great disappointment. The effort to Nazi-fy our nation marches on, unimpeded. BillyDoc probably has it about right -- if the trials of these guys were held in a federal court, abided by the established rules of evidence and due process, what they could reveal about the crimes of our own government and military likely would be more than the "shadow government" could effectively cover up or suppress. Then, there just might be the hell to pay from the citizenry -- or not. If we, as citizens, continue to let pass without revolt, the various totalitarian measures begun at least as far back as Nixon, then we deserve whatever befalls us.

Mr. Obama, I no longer

Mr. Obama, I no longer support you. And as for the Right Wing wonks trying to make a "liberal jump ship" issue out of this, well don't. Many of us actually pursue the issues not the politician. It would seem difficult for them to understand this and unfortunately, for many of our Democratic Congressman and Senators as well. I am once again ashamed of my country for being ignorant and complacent while our legal foundations are being crushed, something I truly believed that Mr. Obama would put a stop to....I was wrong.

Barack Obama needs to get a

Barack Obama needs to get a backbone. This caving on policy is terrible. He doesn't need to pursue W. and Cheney as war criminals to do the right thing in policy areas as basic and important as habeus corpus, military tribunals, torture and rendition. I am sickened that he is going along to get along. If he can't do it now, when? He will never have more "support" than he has at this moment.

I just don't understand the

I just don't understand the need to answer to the republican right criticisms on this or anything else. A nowhere strategy.

If I wasn't so old and

If I wasn't so old and infirm to move to another country I would. This country is scaring me! Eric

To 19:05 who says,

To 19:05 who says, “…When a person is captured on the battle field how can there possibly be a chain of evidence that could be used to convict them of any crime,” many of these prisoners were not on the battlefield when they were rounded up. That’s why they couldn’t be labeled POWs, although I seriously doubt that a label would have prevented water boarding and other acts of torture. Having voted for Obama, with such tremendous hope that he was different, that he would bring “real” change to Washington, I now see that I was duped. Shame on me; I was woefully ignorant. No more. We should judge politicians by what they do and not by what they say. All that talk about change was just pure, unadulterated BS. I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that there is really no difference between politicians who are Democrats and politicians who are Republican, and Obama is one slick politician. Democrats are skilled at telling us what we want to hear while holding hands behind their backs with the elite special interests, whereas Republicans openly give those same elite special interests everything but an honorary seat in the House and Senate. Obama swore to uphold the Constitution, and what is so egregious about his mendacity is that as a professor of Constitutional law, he knows when he’s breaking his oath. He’s just counting on our not knowing it. Clearly we need a third party in this country. Our two-party system has failed us. The next candidate I support for President will not be a Democrat or a Republican. The more I read about Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, the more I like what they stand for.

A string is easily and

A string is easily and quickly tied into intricate knots and become so entangled that it is almost impossible to untangle and come out whole. Let me think... who created this Gordian Knot? Oh, and who is presented with untangling it? How short is the memory of some in this forum. Instant gratification is not happening. Give the man some time.

He was TOO good to be true.

He was TOO good to be true.

00:47 said "who created this

00:47 said "who created this Gordian Knot? ... Give the man some time" Yes but Obama seems to be putting more knots in. Someone needs to slice through this Gordian Knot and get this country back on track. And it appears now that it will neither be a democrat or republican. What does that leave - actually a new opportunity of a new party or process.

The die is cast.

The die is cast. Guantánamo is the slippery slope of justice that will end in the avalanche of every civil and religious right being cast into the sea of never return. The glory is fast departing America. Our law professor president is sacrificing the Constitution for political expediency. Eric Rogers (earlier post 23:09)! I am young and energetic, but there is no other place to run to. When the beacon of justice goes out here it will be extinguished everywhere; the dark ages are to be repeated with greater fury. God truly help US.

Eric, I'm not old and infirm

Eric, I'm not old and infirm - but we can't leave the U.S. because no country wants us. Who can blame them. I am becoming so disenchanted with Obama it just galls me. What the heck is he doing? He's putting deregulaters in, caving right and left and where are the jobs??? No freakin' way I would vote for another war-mongering Republican, but this isn't looking good at all. Why is he caving to these idiots?

Do you think that 'change'

Do you think that 'change' really meant "I can change my mind if I want?" He actually lost me with his AIPAC speech. As a (former) lifelong Democrat I did vote for him, against my intuition. I will never do that again. Should have followed my heart and mind and voted for Nader. I just really was voting against MaCain. I cannot believe the popularity of Mr Obama to this day. America has gone deaf and blind.

"Someone needs to slice

"Someone needs to slice through this Gordian Knot and get this country back on track." Obama can't slice the Gordian Knot until the courts are in his corner. It can't be done until that happens. No matter what solution he comes up with, he needs to have all his pieces in place or you will see terrorists going free... some within our borders. An intelligent commander makes decisions that have little danger of being reversed by outside forces and will face criticism while he's setting up those pieces. I doubt anyone in this forum knows as much about the law than Obama. He would be foolish to bow to expediency that is temporary and could very well place Americans in danger. When he makes the final move, it will be irreversible and will take time.

Cheney and Bush created this

Cheney and Bush created this problem. Gitmo must be closed, but closing it can wait until we get a handle on global climate change and health care.

Everybody seems to have

Everybody seems to have forgotten the vote in Congress on the closure, forgotten about the money that was requested to close the superlative Gulag, forgotten that the money was denied and forgotten completely that even among those who denied Obama the money, they got the vote to get to Congress from the promise, amongst the many he has been working hard to keep, which he made during his campaign to close the hell. Whose lens got blurred by pugilism that forgot the premises that led to a conclusion that was still not the conclusion because Obama has not thrown in the towel anyway. And Marjorie's excursion is speculative journalism at best. It is not the replica of the Memo on which Obama's Plan to close the hell is based really. It is based on "Assuming X, then Y" which Y is Marjorie Cohn's position. The question is suppose the X itself has nothing to do with the Plan that will surface, what then is going to become of what has been said so far all of which shall end up not being based on the truth nor even facts?

"When he makes the final

"When he makes the final move, it will be irreversible and will take time." I have met professors and lawyers who do not feel that Obama has walked the talk to the best of his ability. How much more time do we need to prove that? A term? Or more? It is time to accept that Obama is a major disappointment and to take corrective actions.

Don't doubt that the Obama

Don't doubt that the Obama Administration knows very well what it is doing; I will not question our President's judgement. I feel sorry for those naysayers, so quick to judge, and know that you are incorrect in your typical, critical, jump-onthe-bandwagon comments. Pathetic. Your are probably all Republicans anyway; poisoning the feedback.

ps...President Obama has

ps...President Obama has SOOO much support in the world; it makes me so disgusted to read the criticism here, when we all know he and his advisors, are making the best decisions possible at this time. Crime doesn't pay. Heads will roll. You will see. Obama is right. You are wrong to critique him, anonynous naysayers and others, because most citizens of this free world believe in our President: some things take time. Your opinions really don't matter anymore.

Americans have been: lied to

Americans have been: lied to - misled - Misinformed - misrepresented so many times - we sit idly by, waiting for miracles ..hoping and praying that this time around things will be different. When will we be saved from our oppressors ? Or better yet - when will we save ourselves ? Does anyone care ? What will it take for people to understand this? Is anyone else is scared as I am ?

Wow this article has really

Wow this article has really stirred things up! Most of the comments appear to be from left leaning folks who are disappointed in Obama's performance. Reading these comments I almost feel as though I'm listening to a right-wing radio show... wait a minute, you don't think these comments could be from right-wing shills do you?

I'm sure Aesop had a fable

I'm sure Aesop had a fable to illustrate it but I can't remember it - was it " a Wolf in Sheep's clothing"?