Editorial
January 5, 2009
‘Australia shares responsibility with the US for cleaning up the mess.’
GUANTANAMO Bay is and always has been a legal black hole, deliberately set up by the Bush Administration on a US military base in Cuba to hold terrorism suspects beyond the reach of US courts and, for that matter, international law. For six years, the world observed a charade of justice, as the Administration thwarted a succession of efforts to challenge, in a properly constituted court of law, the legal basis for the detention of 775 detainees in all.
Last June the Supreme Court finally established that the detainees could not be held beyond the reach of US law and upheld their claim to the centuries-old right of habeas corpus. Incoming president Barack Obama has already distinguished himself by denouncing Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and vowing to shut it down as he moves to rebuild "America's moral stature in the world". As his legal adviser, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, has said: "We can't put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there."
Most of the 255 people still detained at Guantanamo are expected to be freed. Only one, Osama bin Laden's former driver Salim Hamdan, has undergone a trial by the Bush Administration's military commission that actually tested the evidence against him. Sentenced to 5½ years in prison, including his time in detention, he was released last month in his homeland, Yemen.
A minority of so-called "high-value" suspects such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 terrorism, can rightly expect to be charged and tried in a court of law that complies with the democratic norms of justice. Even then, the admissibility of confessions and other evidence has regrettably been tainted by their long detention in harsh conditions and, in some cases, torture.
Another problem the US faces is resettling detainees whom it has demonised repeatedly to justify their years of detention without trial. In several cases since the Supreme Court's ruling in June, US courts have assessed the evidence against the men brought before them as being too weak to justify their detention and ordered their release. The US has now cleared about 60 detainees for release, but is unable either to ensure their safety if they return to their home countries or to find other countries willing to accept them.
Only a few nations, such as Germany and Portugal, have said they will consider taking detainees. The Netherlands has responded with an argument that is likely to resonate with a public that is also naturally fearful of men held as terror suspects for so many years. "If they are not to be tried but cannot return to their countries, it is first and foremost the responsibility of the country which arrested and imprisoned them, the United States," a Foreign Ministry official said. In other words, it's their mess and they should clean it up on their own. Unfortunately, the likely consequence would be to doom a large number of probably innocent people to yet more time in detention.
And the US did not do this all on its own. A few nations that were once supportive of Guantanamo Bay, including Australia under the Howard government, share the shame and some responsibility for helping to shut it down. The Rudd Government is one of about 100 asked by the US to help clear the camp. Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard said at the weekend that the Government had rejected a request to accept a group of detainees as they did not meet security and immigration criteria but that future requests would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
A number of legal experts have already sought to establish the truth about the 775 detainees deemed to be "enemy combatants". One two-year project by Professor Mark Denbeaux and his students at Seton Hall Law School, in New Jersey, based on official documents, found that 86 per cent of detainees were not enemy combatants at all. As David McColgin, a lawyer for detainees, points out, "A lot of it was justified on false reports from local Afghan people who simply wanted to get the bounty money the US Government made available, which was a real incentive to provide potentially false information." Until recently, none of this information was tested in court.
Only 14 per cent of detainees were actually captured on a battlefield, but many of those are believed to be among the people still in detention. Thus the domestic political difficulties of resettling any detainees are considerable. However, Australia has already done so in the case of two of its citizens, both of whom are now free. Three years ago, Mamdouh Habib was freed without charge after three years at Guantanamo. He had been vilified by the Bush Administration and the Howard government, in order to persuade the public he belonged among the alleged "worst of the worst" at Guantanamo. No proper explanation, no apology, was offered upon his return. David Hicks returned to Australia in May 2007 to complete a nine-month sentence, having agreed to a plea-bargain deal as a way to end his 5½-year ordeal.
The bottom line is that if other nations want the US to end the injustices endured by the detainees of Guantanamo Bay, they will probably have to help. This dark chapter must be closed soon in order to reclaim some of the high moral ground that the US and its allies so needlessly surrendered in their struggle against terrorism.
This story was found at: The Age Article
Showing posts with label Close Guantanamo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Close Guantanamo. Show all posts
Monday, January 5, 2009
Friday, April 6, 2007
No Hope in Guantanamo
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/petitions2.asp
Amnesty International Petition to Close Guantanamo
Joshua Colangelo-Bryan
The Miami Herald April 5, 2007
On Monday, I was at Guantánamo Bay to meet with Jumah Al Dossari, one of the detainees my firm represents. As always, I spent the first few hours of our meeting trying to convince Jumah to fight the desperation and hopelessness that threaten what little spirit he has left.
Jumah has been at Guantánamo for more than five years. The government has never charged him with a crime and does not accuse him of taking any action against the United States. For several years, Jumah has been held alone in solid-wall cells from which he cannot see other detainees or communicate except by yelling. He has spent 22 to 24 hours a day by himself in these cells. He has been short shackled, threatened with death and, once, severely beaten. Interrogators have told him that he will be at Guantánamo for the next 50 years and that there is no law at Guantánamo.
Sometimes the idea of spending the rest of his life locked up thousands of miles from his family is too much for Jumah. On Oct. 15, 2005, I walked into an interview room to visit him. There was blood on the floor. I looked up and saw Jumah hanging by his neck from the other side of a metal mesh wall that divided his cell from our meeting area. He was bleeding from a gash in his arm.
I couldn’t reach Jumah because the door to the cell was locked. I yelled for guards who came, unlocked the door and cut the noose from Jumah’s neck. I was ordered out of the room but later learned that Jumah had survived. Since that day, Jumah has tried to kill himself three times. Last spring he slashed his throat with a razor, spraying blood on the ceiling of his cell.
During our meeting on Monday, we talked about Jumah’s court case, a bleak — and therefore dangerous — subject. I explained again that the Bush administration insists it may detain anyone it designates an ”enemy combatant” forever without a trial. I explained how Congress blessed that notion in last year’s Military Commissions Act, which bars foreign ”enemy combatants” from going to court to challenge that designation. I explained that lawyers for the detainees had challenged the act as unconstitutional, but that in February a federal appeals had ruled against us on the grounds that people like Jumah have no rights.
Desperately wanting to boost his spirits, I also told Jumah that there was reason to be optimistic. We had asked the Supreme Court to review the appeals court decision and we felt pretty sure that our request would be granted. Were that to happen, Jumah might be a step closer to a court hearing.
At noon, I went to the galley — as the cafeteria at Guantánamo is called — to get lunch for Jumah and myself. While waiting for a burger, I glanced up at a television tuned to CNN. Text ran across the bottom of the screen: “Supreme Court refuses to hear Guantánamo detainee appeals until alternative procedures are exhausted.”
Our request — the one reason I had given Jumah to be optimistic — had been denied. The Supreme Court was saying it might consider the detainees’ cases, but not until the detainees subjected themselves to proceedings created by the Military Commissions Act.
It is a disturbing ruling because the government says the purpose of these proceedings is not to determine if a detainee is actually an ”enemy combatant” but rather to determine if the military followed its own rules in applying the ”enemy combatant” label. For that reason, detainees will have no chance to produce evidence of their innocence that the military didn’t consider or to challenge the use of evidence obtained through torture. Worse yet, these procedures will be held before the same appeals court that recently found the detainees have no rights at all.
I walked slowly back to the room where Jumah sat shackled. I wondered if there was a good way to tell a suicidal man that all three branches of our government appear content to let him rot at Guantánamo. Nothing came to mind.
Maybe I shouldn’t have worried. Jumah’s reaction to bad legal news has become as muted as his emotions generally. He long ago stopped believing that a court will ever hear his case and thinks I’m naive for hoping otherwise. Instead, Jumah believes that he has been condemned to live forever on an island where there is no law. He may well be right.
Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, an attorney, represents several Guantánamo detainees.
Amnesty International Petition to Close Guantanamo
Joshua Colangelo-Bryan
The Miami Herald April 5, 2007
On Monday, I was at Guantánamo Bay to meet with Jumah Al Dossari, one of the detainees my firm represents. As always, I spent the first few hours of our meeting trying to convince Jumah to fight the desperation and hopelessness that threaten what little spirit he has left.
Jumah has been at Guantánamo for more than five years. The government has never charged him with a crime and does not accuse him of taking any action against the United States. For several years, Jumah has been held alone in solid-wall cells from which he cannot see other detainees or communicate except by yelling. He has spent 22 to 24 hours a day by himself in these cells. He has been short shackled, threatened with death and, once, severely beaten. Interrogators have told him that he will be at Guantánamo for the next 50 years and that there is no law at Guantánamo.
Sometimes the idea of spending the rest of his life locked up thousands of miles from his family is too much for Jumah. On Oct. 15, 2005, I walked into an interview room to visit him. There was blood on the floor. I looked up and saw Jumah hanging by his neck from the other side of a metal mesh wall that divided his cell from our meeting area. He was bleeding from a gash in his arm.
I couldn’t reach Jumah because the door to the cell was locked. I yelled for guards who came, unlocked the door and cut the noose from Jumah’s neck. I was ordered out of the room but later learned that Jumah had survived. Since that day, Jumah has tried to kill himself three times. Last spring he slashed his throat with a razor, spraying blood on the ceiling of his cell.
During our meeting on Monday, we talked about Jumah’s court case, a bleak — and therefore dangerous — subject. I explained again that the Bush administration insists it may detain anyone it designates an ”enemy combatant” forever without a trial. I explained how Congress blessed that notion in last year’s Military Commissions Act, which bars foreign ”enemy combatants” from going to court to challenge that designation. I explained that lawyers for the detainees had challenged the act as unconstitutional, but that in February a federal appeals had ruled against us on the grounds that people like Jumah have no rights.
Desperately wanting to boost his spirits, I also told Jumah that there was reason to be optimistic. We had asked the Supreme Court to review the appeals court decision and we felt pretty sure that our request would be granted. Were that to happen, Jumah might be a step closer to a court hearing.
At noon, I went to the galley — as the cafeteria at Guantánamo is called — to get lunch for Jumah and myself. While waiting for a burger, I glanced up at a television tuned to CNN. Text ran across the bottom of the screen: “Supreme Court refuses to hear Guantánamo detainee appeals until alternative procedures are exhausted.”
Our request — the one reason I had given Jumah to be optimistic — had been denied. The Supreme Court was saying it might consider the detainees’ cases, but not until the detainees subjected themselves to proceedings created by the Military Commissions Act.
It is a disturbing ruling because the government says the purpose of these proceedings is not to determine if a detainee is actually an ”enemy combatant” but rather to determine if the military followed its own rules in applying the ”enemy combatant” label. For that reason, detainees will have no chance to produce evidence of their innocence that the military didn’t consider or to challenge the use of evidence obtained through torture. Worse yet, these procedures will be held before the same appeals court that recently found the detainees have no rights at all.
I walked slowly back to the room where Jumah sat shackled. I wondered if there was a good way to tell a suicidal man that all three branches of our government appear content to let him rot at Guantánamo. Nothing came to mind.
Maybe I shouldn’t have worried. Jumah’s reaction to bad legal news has become as muted as his emotions generally. He long ago stopped believing that a court will ever hear his case and thinks I’m naive for hoping otherwise. Instead, Jumah believes that he has been condemned to live forever on an island where there is no law. He may well be right.
Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, an attorney, represents several Guantánamo detainees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
