April, 30 2013, 03:39pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
Obama Can Transfer Hunger Strikers from Guantanamo
President Obama was questioned today about the hunger strikers at Guantanamo: "as you probably are aware, there's a growing hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay among prisoners there. Is it any surprise, really, that they would prefer death rather than have no end in sight to their confinement?"
WASHINGTON
President Obama was questioned today about the hunger strikers at Guantanamo: "as you probably are aware, there's a growing hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay among prisoners there. Is it any surprise, really, that they would prefer death rather than have no end in sight to their confinement?"
President Obama: "Well, it is not a surprise to me that we've got problems in Guantanamo ... I continue to believe we've got to close Guantanamo. ... I don't want these individuals to die. ... Obviously the Pentagon is trying to manage the situation as best as they can. But I think all of us should reflect on why exactly are we doing this? Why are we doing this? ... We can handle this.
"I am going to go back at this. ... I am going to reengage with Congress that this is not in the best interest of the American people." See video.
CARLOS WARNER, carloswarnerlaw at gmail.com, @Carlos_Warner
Warner is an attorney with the Federal Public Defender of the Northern District of Ohio. He represents 11 Guantanamo prisoners. He said today: "I applaud President Obama's remarks -- he hasn't mentioned Guantanamo in years -- but the fact is that Congress has very little to do with it. NDAA as written allows the President to transfer individuals if it's in the national security of the United States. The President's statement made clear that Guantanamo negatively impacts our national security. The question is not whether the administration has the authority to transfer innocent men, but whether it has the political courage to do so."
PATRICIA DAVIS, MATTHEW DALOISIO, daloisio at earthlink.net
Davis and Daloisio are with Witness Against Torture. Daloisio said today: "Obama can appoint a senior government official to shepherd the closure of the prison, and vest that person with sufficient authority to resolve inter-agency squabbling and get the job done.
"It's more than one thousand days since Obama had promised Guantanamo would be closed and 83 days into a hunger strike. We have people, cleared to be released years ago, saying: 'I do not want to kill myself. My religion prohibits suicide. But I will not eat or drink until I die, if necessary, to protest the injustice of this place. We want to get out of this place. It is as though this government wishes to smother us in this injustice, to kill us slowly here, indirectly, without trying us or executing us.' (Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi.)
"Now, President Obama responds to what is a crisis, with 'we can handle this'? Why, lacking any proposed concrete steps, should we -- or more importantly those starving for justice -- believe him?"
JEREMY VARON, jvaron at aol.com
Varon, also with Witness Against Torture, said: "We first heard of the hunger strike about six weeks ago when the U.S. military was denying it was even taking place. Our goal as Witness Against Torture was to build awareness that it was happening, engage in all kinds of solidarity and citizen action work, from vigils to fasting to demos to calls to White House and military to, so far, one direct action. We have seen the story move from the far margins to the headlines. ...
"The hunger strike at Guantanamo is the latest, tragic reminder that Guantanamo must close. Keeping men there indefinitely -- without charge or trial and even when deemed no threat by the U.S. government itself -- is morally unacceptable and politically unsustainable. The Guantanamo nightmare must end now."
See in The Hill: "President Obama Must Act to Close Guantanamo."
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
LATEST NEWS
'Industry's Favorite Puppets': 16 Republican States Sue to Block LNG Pause
"The GOP will go to any length to please their Big Oil donors, even if it means driving up costs for their constituents and torching the climate," one campaigner said.
Mar 22, 2024
The attorneys general of 16 Republican-led states sued on Thursday to reverse the Biden administration's pause on the approval of new liquefied natural gas export licences, a move that was widely celebrated by climate and environmental justice campaigners.
The lawsuit, backed by states including Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, comes after the Republican-led House of Representatives also voted to reverse the halt on licences.
"The GOP will go to any length to please their Big Oil donors, even if it means driving up costs for their constituents and torching the climate," Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media told Common Dreams. "This is just more performative politics from the industry's favorite puppets."
"LNG exports are key to expanding fossil fuel production in the U.S."
In its January decision, the White House said it was pausing Department of Energy sign-offs on new LNG exports to non-free trade agreement countries so that the department could review the criteria it used to assess them, including the exports' impact on domestic energy prices and their contribution to the climate crisis. The move put the breaks on nearly 20 planned new export terminals along Louisiana's Gulf Coast, which would have released equivalent emissions to 675 coal plants and added to the pollution burden placed on local communities by the fossil fuel industry.
However, the attorneys general behind the lawsuit argue that the pause would harm their states and communities that rely on the gas industry for income, as well as the industry itself. They also claim that it is illegal under the Natural Gas Act, and that the "whims of activists cannot override" the act's mandate that the energy secretary must approve LNG exports unless they deem they are not in the public interest. Opponents of the LNG buildout have long contended that the new approvals are not in fact in the public interest given their contributions to the climate crisis, local pollution, and higher energy prices.
The lawsuit further contends that the pause violates the Administrative Procedures Act and a Supreme Court order that agencies not act on "major questions" without approval from Congress.In addition to a reversal of the pause, it calls on the court to "preliminarily and permanently" bar the federal government from "halting or attempting to halt the consideration of LNG export applications."
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, with the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming joining those of Texas, Florida, and Louisiana.
"The GOP pushback on this is a good reminder of what a big deal this announcement was," Henn said of the suit.
"LNG exports are key to expanding fossil fuel production in the U.S.," he continued, adding that President Joe Biden "did the right thing standing up to Big Oil and we don't expect to see him back down now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 24-1 Vote, Hawaii State Senate Demands Permanent Cease-Fire in Gaza
"Hawaii can be proud of its leadership role in carrying the movement to force an immediate, permanent cease-fire in Gaza to the 'state' level," said one advocate.
Mar 22, 2024
In a near-unanimous vote, Hawaii's Senate on Thursday became the first state legislative body in the U.S. to endorse a permanent cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, adding to the mounting domestic pressure on President Joe Biden to force an end to Israel's monthslong assault.
The Hawaii Senate, which is dominated by Democrats, voted 24-1 to approve a resolution urging U.S. President Joe Biden and members of the state's congressional delegation to "publicly call for an immediate and permanent cease-fire in Gaza and continue negotiations for lasting peace."
State Sen. Kurt Fevella (R-20) was the lone no vote on the resolution.
Fatima Abed, founder of the Hawaii-based advocacy group Rise for Palestine, said in a statement Friday that the resolution's passage was a "monumental accomplishment, and Hawaii can be proud of its leadership role in carrying the movement to force an immediate, permanent cease-fire in Gaza to the 'state' level."
"But it is only the first step in a long road to peace and the promise of liberty and the equal rights Palestinians deserve," Abed added.
In testimony supporting the cease-fire resolution, advocacy groups estimated that Hawaii residents contribute roughly $13 million per year in federal taxes that are used to aid Israel's military, which has killed at least 32,000 people in Gaza in less than six months.
The Hawaii Senate's move came hours before Russia, China, and Algeria voted down a U.S.-led U.N. Security Council resolution that described a cease-fire as "imperative" but did not explicitly call for an end to the bloodshed. The three nations that opposed the resolution said they did so because the U.S. measure did not clearly demand a cease-fire.
According to a recent Reutersanalysis, dozens of U.S. city councils have passed resolutions calling for a cease-fire in Gaza as Israel's continued bombing and obstruction of aid fuel one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern history.
As of last week, at least 78 members of Congress have called for a cease-fire in Gaza, a running tally by the Working Families Party shows.
Hawaii's two Democratic senators, Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz, have both expressed support for a temporary cease-fire in the Gaza Strip—a call that falls short of the Hawaii Senate's demand.
The other two members of Hawaii's U.S. congressional delegation—Democratic Reps. Ed Case and Jill Tokuda—have not called for a cease-fire.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No 'Clear Message of Peace': Russia, China, and Algeria Vote Down US Gaza Resolution
"Only by ceasing hostilities we can alleviate the immense suffering and ensure that large-scale humanitarian assistance reaches those in need," said Algeria's ambassador to the United Nations.
Mar 22, 2024
Russia and China on Friday vetoed a U.S. resolution at the United Nations Security Council that called a Gaza cease-fire "imperative" but stopped short of demanding a halt to Israel's monthslong assault on the besieged enclave.
Algeria, which does not have veto power, joined Russia and China in opposing the U.S. resolution, which 11 Security Council members supported. Guyana abstained.
Friday's 11-3-1 vote came just over a month after the U.S. used its veto power to tank an Algeria-led resolution demanding "an immediate humanitarian cease-fire that must be respected by all parties."
Amar Bendjama, Algeria's ambassador to the U.N., said Friday that he was speaking not only for his country "but as a representative of the whole Arab world" as he explained their shared opposition to the U.S. resolution. Bendjama said Algeria proposed edits to the U.S. draft, but the final resolution left central concerns "unaddressed."
"We echoed the demands of millions of people and humanitarian actors for an immediate cessation of hostilities," said Bendjama. "Regrettably, the draft resolution falls short of our expectations. It fails to adequately address these main issues and the immense suffering [being endured] by the Palestinian people."
"Those who believe that the Israeli occupying power will choose to uphold its international legal obligation are mistaken," he argued. "They must abandon this fiction."
Bendjama, who cited the 32,000 people killed by Israel so far and the tens of thousands more wounded or permanently disabled, said the draft of the resolution "does not convey a clear message of peace" and "tacitly allows for continuing civilian casualties and lacks clear safeguard to prevent further escalation."
Russia's ambassador to the U.N., Vassily Nebenzia, argued the U.S. resolution was "not enough" and accused the Biden administration of "deliberately misleading the international community."
Outside analysts also criticized the U.S. resolution. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that while the resolution is "significantly stronger" than previous U.S. drafts, "it still falls short of a clear and unequivocal demand for an unconditional cease-fire."
Craig Mokhiber, a former U.N. official who resigned in late October over the international body's failure to respond to Israel's assault on Gaza, said the U.S. measure "is not a cease-fire resolution. It is a ransom note."
Instead of clearly demanding a cease-fire, the U.S. resolution proposed more ambiguous language expressing "the imperative of an immediate and sustained cease-fire to protect civilians on all sides, allow for the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance, and alleviate humanitarian suffering."
The resolution also tied support for a cease-fire to "the release of all remaining hostages."
Parsi said in a statement Friday that "undoubtedly, Biden's rhetorical shift in favor of a ceasefire is noteworthy, but the devil is in the details."
"The unnecessarily convoluted operative clause raises concerns that this shift is less straightforward than it could and should be," Parsi added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular