Tuesday
Jul152008
Lack of political leadership continues in Guantanamo
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 4:21PM
The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commision) held a hearing on “Guantanamo Detainees after Boumediene: Now What?” Chairman Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) presided over the hearing and said that six years after the Guantanamo camp was opened, there seems to be little progress made in addressing the fundamental problems that plague the detention facility. Hastings also said that the fact that Guantanamo is still open is testament to the genuine challenges the U.S. faces in relocating its residents, and also “speaks to a lack of political leadership” in fixing the problems there.
The International Legal Director of Human Rights First, Gabor Rona, explained that each successive decision of the Supreme Court on the subject of post-9/11 detention has brought the U.S. further back toward the “fold of respect” for international human rights and humanitarian law and the purposes they serve. Rona said that popular notion continues to persist that existing laws of war and criminal law are inadequate because they did not anticipate today’s conflicts, that there is conflict and a requirement to choose between “war” and “crime” paradigms, and that therefore, a new “legal architecture” needs to be developed.
Matthew Waxman, an associate professor of law at Colombia Law School, agreed with Rona and said that on September 11, 2001 the U.S. confronted a grave threat for which it was “poorly prepared.” He explained that Congress needs to reconsider the basic legal and policy decisions taken immediately after 9/11, and the next reform effort should also focus on two interlocking issues: the future of Guantanamo and the appropriate role for courts in reviewing detention decisions. Waxman said that Guantanamo is a symptom of a much larger problem and Congress should not consider it in isolation from other U.S. Government detention operations. He also said that closing Guantanamo will be hard, but despite the challenges it should be closed because doing so will improve the country’s ability to combat terrorism.
Jeremy Shapiro, a Fellow and Research Director with The Brookings Institution, compared Europe’s “long and troubled history” of terrorism with the United States’. Shapiro said that the problem of creating a system of norms and laws for detaining terrorism suspects has been a challenge for every democratic government that has faced a terrorist threat. He explained that each democratic country that has faced a terrorist threat has struggled with precisely the same issues being dealt with in the U.S. Shapiro explained that one general lesson emerges strongly from the experience of other democratic countries: counterterrorism measures, including those regarding detention, need to be rooted in preexisting notions of law and fairness and they need to have broad support across the political spectrum.
The International Legal Director of Human Rights First, Gabor Rona, explained that each successive decision of the Supreme Court on the subject of post-9/11 detention has brought the U.S. further back toward the “fold of respect” for international human rights and humanitarian law and the purposes they serve. Rona said that popular notion continues to persist that existing laws of war and criminal law are inadequate because they did not anticipate today’s conflicts, that there is conflict and a requirement to choose between “war” and “crime” paradigms, and that therefore, a new “legal architecture” needs to be developed.
Matthew Waxman, an associate professor of law at Colombia Law School, agreed with Rona and said that on September 11, 2001 the U.S. confronted a grave threat for which it was “poorly prepared.” He explained that Congress needs to reconsider the basic legal and policy decisions taken immediately after 9/11, and the next reform effort should also focus on two interlocking issues: the future of Guantanamo and the appropriate role for courts in reviewing detention decisions. Waxman said that Guantanamo is a symptom of a much larger problem and Congress should not consider it in isolation from other U.S. Government detention operations. He also said that closing Guantanamo will be hard, but despite the challenges it should be closed because doing so will improve the country’s ability to combat terrorism.
Jeremy Shapiro, a Fellow and Research Director with The Brookings Institution, compared Europe’s “long and troubled history” of terrorism with the United States’. Shapiro said that the problem of creating a system of norms and laws for detaining terrorism suspects has been a challenge for every democratic government that has faced a terrorist threat. He explained that each democratic country that has faced a terrorist threat has struggled with precisely the same issues being dealt with in the U.S. Shapiro explained that one general lesson emerges strongly from the experience of other democratic countries: counterterrorism measures, including those regarding detention, need to be rooted in preexisting notions of law and fairness and they need to have broad support across the political spectrum.
America’s legal system reviewed in light of Guantanamo
Colonel Will Gunn, retired chief defense council for the Department of Defense office of military commissions, said that the government has taken several actions with respect to detainee policy in the post 9/11 era that have significantly “eroded this nation’s standing in terms of respect for human rights.” Gunn outlined several factors that show how the United States has done this through hiding prisoners, coercive interrogations, and an overall policy shift on Geneva Conventions.
“The system I encountered had several drawbacks which generated controversy, diminished the U.S.’s prestige at home and abroad, and fueled widespread perceptions that the system was unfair,” Gunn said. While some of the problems have been addressed by the Supreme Court, many still remain. Gunn recommended using the court martial system an federal courts to dispose of the cases of detainees that should be tried in a court of law.
David Rivkin, partner in the law firm Baker and Hostetler LLP, supported the Bush Administration’s actions in Guantanamo. He said that although members of Congress have “decried the detainee’s fate” at Guantanamo, few have offered suitable alternatives for the prisoners, so they must be keep there.
The individuals who crafted the policy in Guantanamo and the different legal aspects of the “war on terror” viewed the constitution as an obstacle and viewed the checks and balances of the U.S. government unnecessary, said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. Martin said in order to restore America’s standing as an example of just law, it must reinstall due process of law and the right of habeas corpus for the detainees at Guantanamo.