Communist
27th February 2010, 02:05
.
Obama Indefinitely Holding
50 Guantánamo Detainees (http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/2010-02/VR100209.htm#02)
On January 22, 2010, the date President Barack Obama had set to close the Guantánamo prison camp, his administration instead announced that 50 people now held there will be held indefinitely, without trial or charges. Many have already been held without charges for 7-8 years. These 50 people have been designated as “too dangerous” to try or release. In determining that 50 people are “too dangerous” to release, the Obama administration also said the evidence against them is insufficient for a criminal trial.
The task force that announced the decisions was established by Obama his second day in office. It was led by the Justice Department (DoJ) and also included the Secretaries of Defense, State and Homeland Security; the Directors of National Intelligence and the CIA; and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The task force also determined that 35 of the people held at Guantánamo should be prosecuted in federal or military courts and at least 110 can be either immediately or eventually released. The DoJ will now determine which of the 35 will receive federal trials and the military is expected to use military courts to try the rest.
http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/100121.dc.close.guantan.3a.jpg
The task force reports that the 50 being held indefinitely without trial or charges are being held under the “laws of war.” Commonly, the Geneva Conventions are what guides decisions concerning prisoners captured during war, their conditions of confinement, etc. But those at Guantánamo, from the beginning, have not been accorded the basic rights contained in the Geneva Conventions, including those barring torture and humiliating and degrading treatment. They also include the right of the individual to contest his detention before a neutral international tribunal, which is the body given authority to determine the person’s status as a prisoner of war. Instead, Bush, and now Obama, has vested such power in the U.S. president, made the determination on the basis of secret criteria and secret evidence, and now ruled that the detention is to be indefinite.
In previous testimony, Attorney General Eric Holder has also made clear that the designation “too dangerous” can mean that the secret “evidence” is tainted because it was obtained through use of torture. A trial would expose the criminal torture as well as making the evidence inadmissible in court. He also said “too dangerous” may mean that a trial would reveal U.S. intelligence operations, also known to be illegal. In this manner, the executive is establishing that on the president’s say-so alone, an individual can be held indefinitely without trial and without being guilty of any crime. Or perhaps only being guilty of knowing of the government’s crimes. As executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union has put it, “There is no statutory regime in America that allows us to hold people without charge or trial indefinitely.”
The use of this conception that trials are “too dangerous” for the government also serves to further remove these matters of prisoners and their rights from the public arena and place it more under the personal purview of the president. In secret the executive branch makes determinations that enforce indefinite detention with no trial or charges.
Then “national security,” also as determined by the executive, is used to say the secrets must be kept secret as they are “too dangerous” to reveal. This goes directly counter to standards of democracy, where individuals have rights and are protected from the arbitrary dictate of the executive.
Indeed, the Constitution was meant to rein in the tyranny of the executive and is clearly failing to do so. It indicates that new arrangements that put rights front and center are the order of the day.
http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/100121.dc.guantanamo.10.jpg
Obama did say that the 50 people could challenge their detention in federal court under habeas corpus. A habeas corpus trial is a civil case, which means the individual involved is not provided with a lawyer and must mount their legal case using their own resources. Many legal and rights advocates have come forward to pursue such cases for free and are responsible for the case that brought the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of people at Guantánamo to challenge their detention in court.
However, the executive has not submitted to the court findings in many of these cases. There have been 35 habeas corpus trials so far and in 29 of them the courts have ruled the government had insufficient evidence and ordered the person released. These results are indicative of the fact that 80 percent or more of people held at Guantanmo are guilty of nothing at all. In addition, in at least 11 cases, the government has refused to release the person and they remain at Guantánamo. And now, the Obama administration announced that of the 110 to be released, about 60 are from Yemen. While Yemen has agreed to take the people involved, the president has said no one will be released to Yemen until he determines that the country is “sufficiently stable.”
In this manner it can be seen that the president is refusing to submit to the courts and instead usurping the power to decide who is and is not dangerous, who is and is not to be indefinitely detained, regardless of court findings. And at any time he can determine that people from a particular country, or perhaps a particular group, or simply with views considered “too dangerous,” will not be released. Obama indicated this in his State of the Union speech when he said, “If you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.” The inference is that those who do not “adhere to common values” will be treated differently.
Given the experience with Guantánamo, with the government labeling anti-war activists as “terrorists,” and now with the president deciding people can be detained indefinitely without trial or charges, it can be seen that executive power is being used to threaten the right to dissent and all those here and abroad who reject the values of the rich. It is dangerous indeed when the president decides what is and is not “dangerous” – what the common values are, and what different treatments should be meted out to those who do not share them.
http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/0902.chi.detention.jpghttp://www.usmlo.org/spacer.gifhttp://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/090308.virginia.detention.2.jpg
Obama Indefinitely Holding
50 Guantánamo Detainees (http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/2010-02/VR100209.htm#02)
On January 22, 2010, the date President Barack Obama had set to close the Guantánamo prison camp, his administration instead announced that 50 people now held there will be held indefinitely, without trial or charges. Many have already been held without charges for 7-8 years. These 50 people have been designated as “too dangerous” to try or release. In determining that 50 people are “too dangerous” to release, the Obama administration also said the evidence against them is insufficient for a criminal trial.
The task force that announced the decisions was established by Obama his second day in office. It was led by the Justice Department (DoJ) and also included the Secretaries of Defense, State and Homeland Security; the Directors of National Intelligence and the CIA; and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The task force also determined that 35 of the people held at Guantánamo should be prosecuted in federal or military courts and at least 110 can be either immediately or eventually released. The DoJ will now determine which of the 35 will receive federal trials and the military is expected to use military courts to try the rest.
http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/100121.dc.close.guantan.3a.jpg
The task force reports that the 50 being held indefinitely without trial or charges are being held under the “laws of war.” Commonly, the Geneva Conventions are what guides decisions concerning prisoners captured during war, their conditions of confinement, etc. But those at Guantánamo, from the beginning, have not been accorded the basic rights contained in the Geneva Conventions, including those barring torture and humiliating and degrading treatment. They also include the right of the individual to contest his detention before a neutral international tribunal, which is the body given authority to determine the person’s status as a prisoner of war. Instead, Bush, and now Obama, has vested such power in the U.S. president, made the determination on the basis of secret criteria and secret evidence, and now ruled that the detention is to be indefinite.
In previous testimony, Attorney General Eric Holder has also made clear that the designation “too dangerous” can mean that the secret “evidence” is tainted because it was obtained through use of torture. A trial would expose the criminal torture as well as making the evidence inadmissible in court. He also said “too dangerous” may mean that a trial would reveal U.S. intelligence operations, also known to be illegal. In this manner, the executive is establishing that on the president’s say-so alone, an individual can be held indefinitely without trial and without being guilty of any crime. Or perhaps only being guilty of knowing of the government’s crimes. As executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union has put it, “There is no statutory regime in America that allows us to hold people without charge or trial indefinitely.”
The use of this conception that trials are “too dangerous” for the government also serves to further remove these matters of prisoners and their rights from the public arena and place it more under the personal purview of the president. In secret the executive branch makes determinations that enforce indefinite detention with no trial or charges.
Then “national security,” also as determined by the executive, is used to say the secrets must be kept secret as they are “too dangerous” to reveal. This goes directly counter to standards of democracy, where individuals have rights and are protected from the arbitrary dictate of the executive.
Indeed, the Constitution was meant to rein in the tyranny of the executive and is clearly failing to do so. It indicates that new arrangements that put rights front and center are the order of the day.
http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/100121.dc.guantanamo.10.jpg
Obama did say that the 50 people could challenge their detention in federal court under habeas corpus. A habeas corpus trial is a civil case, which means the individual involved is not provided with a lawyer and must mount their legal case using their own resources. Many legal and rights advocates have come forward to pursue such cases for free and are responsible for the case that brought the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of people at Guantánamo to challenge their detention in court.
However, the executive has not submitted to the court findings in many of these cases. There have been 35 habeas corpus trials so far and in 29 of them the courts have ruled the government had insufficient evidence and ordered the person released. These results are indicative of the fact that 80 percent or more of people held at Guantanmo are guilty of nothing at all. In addition, in at least 11 cases, the government has refused to release the person and they remain at Guantánamo. And now, the Obama administration announced that of the 110 to be released, about 60 are from Yemen. While Yemen has agreed to take the people involved, the president has said no one will be released to Yemen until he determines that the country is “sufficiently stable.”
In this manner it can be seen that the president is refusing to submit to the courts and instead usurping the power to decide who is and is not dangerous, who is and is not to be indefinitely detained, regardless of court findings. And at any time he can determine that people from a particular country, or perhaps a particular group, or simply with views considered “too dangerous,” will not be released. Obama indicated this in his State of the Union speech when he said, “If you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.” The inference is that those who do not “adhere to common values” will be treated differently.
Given the experience with Guantánamo, with the government labeling anti-war activists as “terrorists,” and now with the president deciding people can be detained indefinitely without trial or charges, it can be seen that executive power is being used to threaten the right to dissent and all those here and abroad who reject the values of the rich. It is dangerous indeed when the president decides what is and is not “dangerous” – what the common values are, and what different treatments should be meted out to those who do not share them.
http://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/0902.chi.detention.jpghttp://www.usmlo.org/spacer.gifhttp://www.usmlo.org/arch2010/photos/090308.virginia.detention.2.jpg