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
US President Barack Obama delivers a statement on the Guantanamo Bay detention camp flanked by US Vice President Joe Biden (L) and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter on February 23, 2016, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, DC.
(Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
Will Guantanamo Still Be Open in 2050?
Feb 24, 2016
Will Guantanamo still be open a decade from now? What about in 2050, a half-century after it opened? Years from now, will we still be protesting--every January 11- the grim anniversary of this site of injustice, torture, and detention without charge?
We hope not, and on Tuesday, we saw President Obama share our conviction that Guantanamo must close. He, too, harkened to a future where the US still holds people indefinitely and without charge:
And if, as a nation, we don't deal with this now, when will we deal with it? Are we going to let this linger on for another 15 years, another 20 years, another 30 years? If we don't do what's required now, I think future generations are going to look back and ask why we failed to act when the right course, the right side of history, and of justice, and our best American traditions was clear.
The immediate reaction from many members of Congress and other public officials was disdain for President Obama's commitment to closing Guantanamo. Exploiting the public's fear and genuine need for security, they argued Guantanamo should stay open -implicitly, until the 91 men who are held there die, and longer still. They want Guantanamo to remain open indefinitely as a permanent offshore prison for anyone who might be captured in this global, apparently endless war.
The stakes are nothing less than this:
- Will the United States keep Guantanamo open--and hold individuals without charge for decades and decades to come?
- Will prolonged detention without charge become the U.S. norm?
- Will the U.S. criminal justice system exist in parallel with a system of Life In Prison Without Charge?
We strongly disagree with aspects of the Obama administration's plan to close Guantanamo, including using military commissions that by design fail to meet international fair trial standards. And we are disturbed by President Obama's proposal to relocate several detainees to the U.S. mainland for detention without charge. That would recreate Guantanamo at home, entrench its fundamental flaws, and further perpetuate the violations of international law associated with it.
But we are gratified that President Obama has in some ways rejected the fear, hate and ignorance that underlie the continued existence of Guantanamo. What he did not mention is the serious risk that the phenomenon of Guantanamo will spread, i.e., that subsequent administrations will try to introduce preventive detention on national security grounds in the United States.
We are witnessing an alarming rise in anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment. It is easy to imagine a subsequent administration trying to fill Guantanamo --or a Guantanamo-style facility in the U.S. mainland--with new detainees. And it is all too foreseeable that U.S. courts would defy elastic detention standards argued for by a future administration. These standards could be applied based on prejudice and fear, with echoes of some of the worst chapters of U.S. history--including Japanese internment.
We have questions for the public officials who continue to parade "national security" as justification for keeping detainees at Guantanamo:
Where does this all end? And in your future vision, is there any place for human rights?
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Naureen Shah
Naureen Shah (@naureenshah) is a senior policy and advocacy counsel on immigrants' rights with the ACLU. She is a human rights lawyer with history as a strategist, lobbyist, researcher and campaigner. Previously she was senior director of campaigns at the US section of Amnesty International and a lobbyist at the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. Naureen has lobbied Congress, the White House, federal agencies, the UN, EU, foreign governments and regional human rights bodies. She is the author of several reports and commentaries on human rights, detention, torture and national security. She has collaborated with and trained grassroots activists across the country. She holds a J.D. from Columbia Law School and a B.S. from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism.
barack obamacriminal justiceguantanamoguantanamo bayguantánamohuman rightsindefinite detentioninternational lawjapanese internmentnational securityobama administrationprotesttortureguantánamo bay
Will Guantanamo still be open a decade from now? What about in 2050, a half-century after it opened? Years from now, will we still be protesting--every January 11- the grim anniversary of this site of injustice, torture, and detention without charge?
We hope not, and on Tuesday, we saw President Obama share our conviction that Guantanamo must close. He, too, harkened to a future where the US still holds people indefinitely and without charge:
And if, as a nation, we don't deal with this now, when will we deal with it? Are we going to let this linger on for another 15 years, another 20 years, another 30 years? If we don't do what's required now, I think future generations are going to look back and ask why we failed to act when the right course, the right side of history, and of justice, and our best American traditions was clear.
The immediate reaction from many members of Congress and other public officials was disdain for President Obama's commitment to closing Guantanamo. Exploiting the public's fear and genuine need for security, they argued Guantanamo should stay open -implicitly, until the 91 men who are held there die, and longer still. They want Guantanamo to remain open indefinitely as a permanent offshore prison for anyone who might be captured in this global, apparently endless war.
The stakes are nothing less than this:
- Will the United States keep Guantanamo open--and hold individuals without charge for decades and decades to come?
- Will prolonged detention without charge become the U.S. norm?
- Will the U.S. criminal justice system exist in parallel with a system of Life In Prison Without Charge?
We strongly disagree with aspects of the Obama administration's plan to close Guantanamo, including using military commissions that by design fail to meet international fair trial standards. And we are disturbed by President Obama's proposal to relocate several detainees to the U.S. mainland for detention without charge. That would recreate Guantanamo at home, entrench its fundamental flaws, and further perpetuate the violations of international law associated with it.
But we are gratified that President Obama has in some ways rejected the fear, hate and ignorance that underlie the continued existence of Guantanamo. What he did not mention is the serious risk that the phenomenon of Guantanamo will spread, i.e., that subsequent administrations will try to introduce preventive detention on national security grounds in the United States.
We are witnessing an alarming rise in anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment. It is easy to imagine a subsequent administration trying to fill Guantanamo --or a Guantanamo-style facility in the U.S. mainland--with new detainees. And it is all too foreseeable that U.S. courts would defy elastic detention standards argued for by a future administration. These standards could be applied based on prejudice and fear, with echoes of some of the worst chapters of U.S. history--including Japanese internment.
We have questions for the public officials who continue to parade "national security" as justification for keeping detainees at Guantanamo:
Where does this all end? And in your future vision, is there any place for human rights?
Naureen Shah
Naureen Shah (@naureenshah) is a senior policy and advocacy counsel on immigrants' rights with the ACLU. She is a human rights lawyer with history as a strategist, lobbyist, researcher and campaigner. Previously she was senior director of campaigns at the US section of Amnesty International and a lobbyist at the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. Naureen has lobbied Congress, the White House, federal agencies, the UN, EU, foreign governments and regional human rights bodies. She is the author of several reports and commentaries on human rights, detention, torture and national security. She has collaborated with and trained grassroots activists across the country. She holds a J.D. from Columbia Law School and a B.S. from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism.
Will Guantanamo still be open a decade from now? What about in 2050, a half-century after it opened? Years from now, will we still be protesting--every January 11- the grim anniversary of this site of injustice, torture, and detention without charge?
We hope not, and on Tuesday, we saw President Obama share our conviction that Guantanamo must close. He, too, harkened to a future where the US still holds people indefinitely and without charge:
And if, as a nation, we don't deal with this now, when will we deal with it? Are we going to let this linger on for another 15 years, another 20 years, another 30 years? If we don't do what's required now, I think future generations are going to look back and ask why we failed to act when the right course, the right side of history, and of justice, and our best American traditions was clear.
The immediate reaction from many members of Congress and other public officials was disdain for President Obama's commitment to closing Guantanamo. Exploiting the public's fear and genuine need for security, they argued Guantanamo should stay open -implicitly, until the 91 men who are held there die, and longer still. They want Guantanamo to remain open indefinitely as a permanent offshore prison for anyone who might be captured in this global, apparently endless war.
The stakes are nothing less than this:
- Will the United States keep Guantanamo open--and hold individuals without charge for decades and decades to come?
- Will prolonged detention without charge become the U.S. norm?
- Will the U.S. criminal justice system exist in parallel with a system of Life In Prison Without Charge?
We strongly disagree with aspects of the Obama administration's plan to close Guantanamo, including using military commissions that by design fail to meet international fair trial standards. And we are disturbed by President Obama's proposal to relocate several detainees to the U.S. mainland for detention without charge. That would recreate Guantanamo at home, entrench its fundamental flaws, and further perpetuate the violations of international law associated with it.
But we are gratified that President Obama has in some ways rejected the fear, hate and ignorance that underlie the continued existence of Guantanamo. What he did not mention is the serious risk that the phenomenon of Guantanamo will spread, i.e., that subsequent administrations will try to introduce preventive detention on national security grounds in the United States.
We are witnessing an alarming rise in anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment. It is easy to imagine a subsequent administration trying to fill Guantanamo --or a Guantanamo-style facility in the U.S. mainland--with new detainees. And it is all too foreseeable that U.S. courts would defy elastic detention standards argued for by a future administration. These standards could be applied based on prejudice and fear, with echoes of some of the worst chapters of U.S. history--including Japanese internment.
We have questions for the public officials who continue to parade "national security" as justification for keeping detainees at Guantanamo:
Where does this all end? And in your future vision, is there any place for human rights?
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.