SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Obama Walks Back on Guantanamo
The president's order for indefinite detention of 'war on terror' suspects marks continuity with Bush-era disdain for legal norms
Dec 22, 2010
The Obama administration, ProPublica's Dafna Linzer first reported, is about to issue an executive order that gives shape, contour and future life to indefinite detention for Guantanamo detainees. The order will provide for the continual detention of several dozen detainees - who will have access lawyers in order to periodically contest their detention.
On one level, we shouldn't be surprised. In what has become a signature method of the Obama administration, the bad news was trotted out as an idea well ahead of time. In May of 2009, President Obama let it be known that indefinite detention was among the options that the administration would likely embrace in its efforts to close Guantanamo. Now, as their calculation may have predicted, what was once an unsavoury idea barely causes a ripple in the fabric of public opinion. Overshadowed by the continuing focus on the economy, and reflecting a growing callousness towards civil liberties issues in the "war on terror", the public will likely greet the announcement with numbness.
But there is more to be worried about than meets the eye. The problem is not just the disturbing fact that the Obama policy perpetuates a piece of the Bush detention regime. Indefinite detention was the very heart of the Bush policy. The idea that the United States could hold individuals, refuse to classify them in any recognised legal category and thereby deny them rights, was the doorway to a host of unacceptable policies, including enhanced interrogation techniques, excessive periods of solitary confinement (apart from interrogation), disappearances to "black sites", and most of all, the refusal to confront squarely the distinction between guilt and innocence. The several dozen individuals whom the Obama administration intends to hold are among those they believe there is insufficient evidence to convict. If the judgment of guilt is not certain, then these men cannot be tried.
Most disturbingly, since his suggestions about indefinite detention 18 months ago, Obama has barely moved in his reasoning for perpetuating the idea. It appears that the reason the administration refuses to allow trial or release for these detainees has less to do with the individuals themselves, than with the current global context. In the case of Yemen, the country of origin for a majority of the remaining detainees, the security environment is considered too unstable and could lead to the detainee's future engagement with terrorism. Or, in the case of the general detainee population, release could eventually come, according reportedly to a government spokesperson, when "the group that the detainee is affiliated with could cease to exist". These individuals cannot be free because they could be influenced by the environment in a way that could bring harm to the United States.
Rather than the fact of harm, we have the possibility of harm. (In this way, it is not dissimilar to the department of justice's use of informant cases to weed out potential terrorists rather than those engaged on their own accord in terrorist activity.) And until US foreign policy sufficiently reduces that risk, the legal system must stand down.
With the announcement of indefinite detention as a policy, rather than a possibility, the United States will cross a threshold that, as torture did, takes us back to the past, a past before the introduction of trials, when guilt and innocence were decided by signs from the heavens and an appeal to God, rather than to legal processes conducted by men.
In this case, the judgment of the executive will be substituted for that of the heavens. In this new century, tribalism has come face to face with globalisation. Time and again, it seems, we are running backwards, rather than forwards.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Guardian
Karen Greenberg
Karen J. Greenberg is the Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law. She is the author of "The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo's First 100 Days" (2010). She is also the co-editor of "The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib" (2005).
The Obama administration, ProPublica's Dafna Linzer first reported, is about to issue an executive order that gives shape, contour and future life to indefinite detention for Guantanamo detainees. The order will provide for the continual detention of several dozen detainees - who will have access lawyers in order to periodically contest their detention.
On one level, we shouldn't be surprised. In what has become a signature method of the Obama administration, the bad news was trotted out as an idea well ahead of time. In May of 2009, President Obama let it be known that indefinite detention was among the options that the administration would likely embrace in its efforts to close Guantanamo. Now, as their calculation may have predicted, what was once an unsavoury idea barely causes a ripple in the fabric of public opinion. Overshadowed by the continuing focus on the economy, and reflecting a growing callousness towards civil liberties issues in the "war on terror", the public will likely greet the announcement with numbness.
But there is more to be worried about than meets the eye. The problem is not just the disturbing fact that the Obama policy perpetuates a piece of the Bush detention regime. Indefinite detention was the very heart of the Bush policy. The idea that the United States could hold individuals, refuse to classify them in any recognised legal category and thereby deny them rights, was the doorway to a host of unacceptable policies, including enhanced interrogation techniques, excessive periods of solitary confinement (apart from interrogation), disappearances to "black sites", and most of all, the refusal to confront squarely the distinction between guilt and innocence. The several dozen individuals whom the Obama administration intends to hold are among those they believe there is insufficient evidence to convict. If the judgment of guilt is not certain, then these men cannot be tried.
Most disturbingly, since his suggestions about indefinite detention 18 months ago, Obama has barely moved in his reasoning for perpetuating the idea. It appears that the reason the administration refuses to allow trial or release for these detainees has less to do with the individuals themselves, than with the current global context. In the case of Yemen, the country of origin for a majority of the remaining detainees, the security environment is considered too unstable and could lead to the detainee's future engagement with terrorism. Or, in the case of the general detainee population, release could eventually come, according reportedly to a government spokesperson, when "the group that the detainee is affiliated with could cease to exist". These individuals cannot be free because they could be influenced by the environment in a way that could bring harm to the United States.
Rather than the fact of harm, we have the possibility of harm. (In this way, it is not dissimilar to the department of justice's use of informant cases to weed out potential terrorists rather than those engaged on their own accord in terrorist activity.) And until US foreign policy sufficiently reduces that risk, the legal system must stand down.
With the announcement of indefinite detention as a policy, rather than a possibility, the United States will cross a threshold that, as torture did, takes us back to the past, a past before the introduction of trials, when guilt and innocence were decided by signs from the heavens and an appeal to God, rather than to legal processes conducted by men.
In this case, the judgment of the executive will be substituted for that of the heavens. In this new century, tribalism has come face to face with globalisation. Time and again, it seems, we are running backwards, rather than forwards.
Karen Greenberg
Karen J. Greenberg is the Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law. She is the author of "The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo's First 100 Days" (2010). She is also the co-editor of "The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib" (2005).
The Obama administration, ProPublica's Dafna Linzer first reported, is about to issue an executive order that gives shape, contour and future life to indefinite detention for Guantanamo detainees. The order will provide for the continual detention of several dozen detainees - who will have access lawyers in order to periodically contest their detention.
On one level, we shouldn't be surprised. In what has become a signature method of the Obama administration, the bad news was trotted out as an idea well ahead of time. In May of 2009, President Obama let it be known that indefinite detention was among the options that the administration would likely embrace in its efforts to close Guantanamo. Now, as their calculation may have predicted, what was once an unsavoury idea barely causes a ripple in the fabric of public opinion. Overshadowed by the continuing focus on the economy, and reflecting a growing callousness towards civil liberties issues in the "war on terror", the public will likely greet the announcement with numbness.
But there is more to be worried about than meets the eye. The problem is not just the disturbing fact that the Obama policy perpetuates a piece of the Bush detention regime. Indefinite detention was the very heart of the Bush policy. The idea that the United States could hold individuals, refuse to classify them in any recognised legal category and thereby deny them rights, was the doorway to a host of unacceptable policies, including enhanced interrogation techniques, excessive periods of solitary confinement (apart from interrogation), disappearances to "black sites", and most of all, the refusal to confront squarely the distinction between guilt and innocence. The several dozen individuals whom the Obama administration intends to hold are among those they believe there is insufficient evidence to convict. If the judgment of guilt is not certain, then these men cannot be tried.
Most disturbingly, since his suggestions about indefinite detention 18 months ago, Obama has barely moved in his reasoning for perpetuating the idea. It appears that the reason the administration refuses to allow trial or release for these detainees has less to do with the individuals themselves, than with the current global context. In the case of Yemen, the country of origin for a majority of the remaining detainees, the security environment is considered too unstable and could lead to the detainee's future engagement with terrorism. Or, in the case of the general detainee population, release could eventually come, according reportedly to a government spokesperson, when "the group that the detainee is affiliated with could cease to exist". These individuals cannot be free because they could be influenced by the environment in a way that could bring harm to the United States.
Rather than the fact of harm, we have the possibility of harm. (In this way, it is not dissimilar to the department of justice's use of informant cases to weed out potential terrorists rather than those engaged on their own accord in terrorist activity.) And until US foreign policy sufficiently reduces that risk, the legal system must stand down.
With the announcement of indefinite detention as a policy, rather than a possibility, the United States will cross a threshold that, as torture did, takes us back to the past, a past before the introduction of trials, when guilt and innocence were decided by signs from the heavens and an appeal to God, rather than to legal processes conducted by men.
In this case, the judgment of the executive will be substituted for that of the heavens. In this new century, tribalism has come face to face with globalisation. Time and again, it seems, we are running backwards, rather than forwards.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy