

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

US President Barack Obama should ramp up efforts to prosecute in federal court or otherwise return and resettle detainees at the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, now entering its tenth year, Human Rights Watch said today. Congressional obstacles to closing Guantanamo should invigorate, not dampen, Obama administration efforts to ensure US compliance with international law, Human Rights Watch said.
"Closing Guantanamo is as essential today as it was when President Obama took office in 2009," said Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. "But Obama can't keep hoping that a political consensus will form and Congress will make it easy - he has to act to make it happen."
The US first began bringing foreign prisoners to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay on January 11, 2002. Nine years later, despite a promise by President Obama to close the facility by January 2010, 173 detainees remain. The administration has recently acknowledged that Guantanamo will stay open for the foreseeable future.
Since the Bush presidency, Human Rights Watch has called for the closure of Guantanamo and the treatment of foreign terrorism suspects in accordance with US obligations under international law. The Obama administration, while departing from its predecessor by committing to closing the facility, has made missteps and endured setbacks that keep Guantanamo a blight on the US' human rights record. These include failing to end the practice of indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects; continuing to use military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects instead of US federal courts; making insufficient efforts to repatriate safely or resettle detainees; and inadequately responding to overcome obstacles from Congress to prevent Guantanamo's closure.
"Obama still has the authority he needs to bring Guantanamo detainees to justice in US courts or to send them home," said Prasow. "If he truly believes that Guantanamo is a scar on America's reputation, he should assert his authority now."
Key issues in the Obama administration's efforts to close Guantanamo are addressed below.
Indefinite Detention in the US
On January 22, 2009, one of President Obama's first acts was to sign an executive order to close Guantanamo within one year. While the order seemed to turn a page on the abusive counterterrorism policies of the previous administration, the failure of the Obama administration to even develop a plan for Guantanamo's closure, let alone meet the deadline, was a major setback for ensuring respect for human rights.
The first sign that Obama would not meet his self-imposed deadline came in his May 2009 speech at the US National Archives. In describing the population at Guantanamo, Obama outlined five categories of detainees, including a set of persons "who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people." He said his administration would work with Congress to develop a legal framework setting out the rules and procedures for the "prolonged" detention of such persons. The Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force, created to review the status of each detainee, completed its report on January 22, 2010, and recommended that 48 of the 240 men whose cases it reviewed be held indefinitely, without charge. The report made clear that even if Guantanamo were physically closed, the lawlessness and indefinite detention without trial that the facility symbolized would be retained.
In November 2009, the administration announced its intention to purchase the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois and to transfer detainees there from Guantanamo. Writing to Illinois legislators, the administration emphasized that the facility would not be used for detainees who would be tried in federal court or in military commissions, but instead for those who would be detained indefinitely. Thus "closing" Guantanamo really meant just moving the problem of indefinite detention to a facility on the US mainland. Congress has since taken action to prevent the purchase of Thomson, though primarily to keep Guantanamo open, rather than out of opposition to the indefinite detention regime.
In December 2010, press reports indicated that Obama would sign an executive order detailing a periodic review process for detainees the administration intends to hold indefinitely. Even if such a review process is limited to those 48 detainees identified for further prolonged detention, it would mark a formal legal authorization by the president to continue to hold people without charge.
Military Commissions
Instead of repudiating the military commissions at Guantanamo, President Obama in May 2009 announced that he would work with Congress to amend the commission rules, ultimately resulting in the Military Commissions Act of 2009. The new law made a number of improvements to the Bush-era military commissions system, creating, among other changes, important restrictions on the use of hearsay and coerced evidence.
The military commissions nonetheless still fail to meet international fair trial standards and remain vastly inferior to federal courts as a forum for trying terrorism cases. They have been marred by procedural problems, the use of evidence obtained by coercion, inconsistent application of varying rules of evidence, poor translation, and lack of public access. They are also susceptible to legal challenge for violating the prohibition on retroactive criminal charges, for applying only to non-citizens, and may ultimately be ruled unconstitutional if appeals ever reach the Supreme Court.
Despite Obama's stated intent to pursue military commissions for at least some of the 36 cases designated for prosecution by the Task Force, no new cases have been referred since he took office, and only two of the previously referred cases have been concluded. Only five cases in total have been completed at Guantanamo since 2002. The first prosecution by the Obama administration was of Ibrahim al-Qosi, a Sudanese man who worked as Osama bin Laden's cook for several years. His case resulted in a secret plea agreement that reportedly involved two more years of imprisonment. He has been detained since 2002. The prosecution of Omar Khadr - a Canadian citizen who was 15 years old when apprehended by US forces in Afghanistan - drew international criticism because the United States was the first Western nation to prosecute someone for alleged war crimes committed as a child and because the conduct with which he was charged had never before been considered a violation of the laws of war. Currently, only one detainee, Noor Uthman Muhammed, from Sudan, faces referred charges before a military commission.
Federal Court Trials
Despite President Obama's stated preference for federal court trials, only one detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, a Tanzanian national, has been transferred to the United States for prosecution. Ghailani faced a pre-existing indictment in federal court in New York for his alleged role in the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. His five co-defendants were all convicted in federal court before Ghailani was even apprehended. His case was the first and only one to be transferred from Guantanamo to US federal court.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced in November 2009 that the cases of the five men accused of plotting the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States would also be transferred from Guantanamo to US federal court in New York. However, following public pronouncements by local officials claiming high costs to secure the trial site, the administration announced it would reconsider the trial venue. To date, the Obama administration has still not announced where, or even if, the 9/11 co-accused will be prosecuted.
After more than a year with no decision on a trial venue, Congress in late 2010 imposed funding restrictions, under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) discussed below, that may make it even more difficult to transfer Guantanamo detainees to federal court. While Congress debated these restrictions, Holder vigorously and publically opposed them. His opposition however was undermined by Obama's failure to make any public statement of his own. Obama did issue a signing statement after the bill passed, when he signed it into law, vowing to work to repeal the restrictions and to "mitigate their effects." He still has the power to use funds from other sources than those appropriated under the act to bring the detainees to the US for trial. However, it remains to be seen whether he will make the politically difficult choice to do so and move forward on closing the detention facility that for nine years has been a black mark on the US' human rights record.
Repatriation and Resettlement
As early as September 2002, the Bush administration began transferring detainees out of Guantanamo to their home countries. Eventually 532 detainees were transferred out of Guantanamo during the Bush presidency. Since Obama took office in January 2009, 67 detainees have been transferred home or to third countries. The Bush administration repatriated several detainees to countries where they faced torture or other ill-treatment, such as Russia and Tunisia, in violation of the Convention Against Torture, which United States has ratified. In an effort to avoid unlawful returns, the Obama administration appointed a special envoy for the closure of Guantanamo, Ambassador Daniel Fried, who has been successful at convincing other countries to resettle Guantanamo detainees even in the face of a US ban on resettling them in the United States. While the administration has made a significant commitment to resettling detainees who cannot be repatriated, it missed an important opportunity to resettle several Uighur detainees -Muslims from China who had taken no action against the US. A Uighur community in the United States was eager to receive them. Obama's failure to take early, decisive action on resettlement facilitated congressional transfer restrictions that continue to hinder the administration's efforts to close the detention facility.
During the Obama administration two detainees have been returned to Algeria against their will without being provided an opportunity to contest their repatriation. According to the Convention against Torture, which the US ratified in 1994, no one can be sent to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment. The Committee against Torture, the international expert body that monitors compliance with the Convention against Torture, said in 2006 that the United States "should always ensure that suspects have the possibility to challenge decisions of refoulement [return]."
The two men - Aziz Abdul Naji and Saeed Farhi bin Mohammed - had expressed fear of government ill-treatment if they were repatriated. US officials claim that Algeria's human rights record has improved significantly over the past decade, and asserted that the Algerian government provided so-called "diplomatic assurances" - promises to treat returned detainees humanely. Human Rights Watch's research has shown that diplomatic assurances provided by receiving countries, which are legally unenforceable, do not provide an effective safeguard against torture and ill-treatment. Algerian human rights groups report that torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment are at times used on those suspected of terror links.
Of the 173 detainees currently at Guantanamo, the Task Force has cleared 59 for release. Of these, 16 are slated for resettlement to third countries, but Ambassador Fried's office has not been able to place them because, among other things, US allies that might accept them are not convinced that Obama is serious about his commitment to close Guantanamo.
An additional 30 detainees from Yemen have been cleared for release, but they continue to be detained in Guantanamo because the administration imposed a moratorium on transfers to Yemen following the Christmas Day 2009 attempted bombing of an airliner. The man accused in the plot allegedly received training in Yemen. In October 2010, another plot was uncovered that involved sending bombs via cargo planes from Yemen to addresses in the United States. The administration has made exceptions to the moratorium to comply with court orders, yet 57 of the remaining Guantanamo detainees are from Yemen.
Congressional Action
In 2009, Congress enacted a series of funding restrictions that prohibited the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to the US. These restrictions made an exception for those being transferred for prosecution. Only one detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, was transferred to face trial in federal court. In November 2009 he was convicted of conspiracy to destroy government property and now faces a sentence of 20 years to life.
In late 2010 however, Congress passed even more strict funding prohibitions affecting the administration's Guantanamo policies. The NDAA, passed by Congress during its 2010 "lame duck" session, barred the use of Defense Department funds for the transfer of detainees currently held at Guantanamo to the US even for prosecution.
In signing the bill, Obama attached a statement expressing strong opposition to the hurdles imposed by Congress. Although he did not expressly state an intention to proceed with transferring detainees out of Guantanamo he noted that the bill's restrictions only apply to funds appropriated by the act, that prosecuting terrorism suspects in federal courts is "a powerful tool" for protecting national security, and that "[a]ny attempt to deprive the executive branch of that tool" undermines counterterrorism efforts. Since the legislation applies only to funds allocated to the Defense Department, other funds, such as those from the Department of Justice or State, for example, can still be used to transfer detainees to the US or to other countries.
The NDAA also bars the use of Defense Department funds for the purchase of the Thomson Correctional facility in Illinois, where the administration intended to transfer dozens of detainees. It also contains new rules requiring that, prior to transferring a detainee even to his home country, the secretary of defense must certify certain factors exist related to that country's ability to monitor and control the detainee and its past experience with terrorism. As a result, detainees who have already been cleared for release, some of whom have been held for more than eight years, may continue to be held indefinitely without trial in violation of US obligations under international law.
The new rules also restrict the use of Defense Department funds for the transfer of a detainee to a country with cases of "confirmed recidivism," which is not defined. While government reports claim confirmed recidivism rates among released Guantanamo detainees as high as 13 percent, these reports have been discredited by academics and experts who have analyzed the figures and cross-referenced them with publicly available information. The US government has never released a list of names of alleged recidivists or details of their alleged conduct. While there are cases of former detainees engaging in violent acts, an attempt by Congress to bar the release of detainees cleared for transfer by the administration is overbroad, would prevent the US from meeting its international legal obligations, and would harm the administration's global counterterrorism efforts by deterring international cooperation. Since the ban only applies to Defense Department funds, the administration retains the ability to repatriate and resettle detainees even to countries that have experienced recidivism, using other government funds.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."