The General Speaks. Will the President finally listen?
This past weekend, former Secretary of State Colin Powell recommended that "Guantanamo ought to be closed immediately". Secretary Powell said "the value of holding prisoners there was unclear, but the price we were paying around the world for doing so was obvious." Better late than never I say.
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has certainly altered the landscape and increased the urgency to deal with the American black eye in Cuba. The ruling was a victory for the rule of law and a reminder that even during our toughest times we must not allow the sometimes insatiable quest for expanded executive power to suffocate the wise system our founders created with checks and balances, co-equal branches of government. No branch or person, including the President, is above the law regardless of the difficult circumstances we find ourselves in. In fact, protecting these principles is even more critical during times of war, when our democratic values are challenged the most.
The Supreme Court declared that the military commissions the President established at Guantanamo are illegal. The court did not find the Geneva Conventions to be "quaint" and "obsolete" as the President's Attorney General did. In fact, the court found that the commissions failed to meet the minimum standards of procedural fairness required under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. The Uniform Code as well as the Geneva Conventions provide "all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
A detainee "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely" and the Conventions prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." Without rehashing, I think many would agree that the environment at Guantanamo does not meet these standards.
The military commissions established under Bush fell short for many reasons. Perhaps most significantly, defendants don't have the right to be present at their own trial, nor confront the evidence against them. Furthermore, such evidence presented may have been obtained by coercion, which many in law enforcement deem unreliable.
Now, some on the Right are saying they will simply use Congressional power to authorize business as usual at Guantanamo. But then why did the commissions, already supposedly authorized by Congress under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (a weak argument rejected by the Court), not pass judicial muster? As Justice O'Connor observed, "the Constitution is best preserved by reliance on standards tested over time and insulated from the pressures of the moment."
The administration and our leaders have a chance for a course correction here and it is critical they take it. Guantanamo, as Powell noted, has devastated our ability to win hearts and minds and has hurt us dearly with our allies. We can ill afford losing such critical assets in our war against terror.
I hope you will join me in action to make sure Congress passes a statute consistent with the Geneva Conventions. It is not to protect those being held, but to protect the values this nation stands for and the recognition that the Conventions are of tremendous importance to our troops serving overseas. We should be leading the world on issues of due process, laws that govern our democracy, morals, human rights and human dignity. The United States should set the example.
It is time for people to demand that the United States, a beacon of hope and freedom, reclaim its place as the world's leader in establishing real moral values in the way it operates, and show those starting down the path to democracy what it looks like in practice.
There would be no better way to reclaim that position than to shut down Guantanamo and provide those held there with the protections and standards of article 3 in the Geneva conventions.
Take Action NOW!
Very nicely done.You have a better grasp on the constititution than many lawyeres, including the AG.
Flavia:
Why are you not running the United States yet?They have to shut down Guantanamo for all the reasons you write about.
Thank you.
It's important to realize that the Guantanamo debate is not about how we punish known terrorists or enemy combatants (obviously with basic human decency appropriate under the circumstances), but rather how we establish a system that ensures innocents aren't arbitrarily swept up and thrown in prison indefinitely. After all, how can we honestly promote the creation of democracies that protect civil liberties in Iraq and Afghanistan, while at the same time tossing anyone rounded up by the military who appears to be an insurgent into perpetual lockup? Time to lead by example.
Posted by: JSM at July 10, 2006 01:57 PMPro Bono attorney and Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal Dartmouth alum 91 defends the rights Guantanamo detainees before the Supreme Court. Go Neal! Please check out his landmark case Hamdan V. Rumsfeld. It highlights the role of Congress passing vague laws to remove a case from the Supreme Court Docket. Flavia I absolutely love the take action option on your blog! I love that you can immediately react by sending a quick note off to the Prez! Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Liza at July 10, 2006 05:26 PMNot many people know about Common Article 3,
but we all know that every human being has the God-given right to be treated humanely, even if his fellow man does not believe he deserves it.
We may not know the history of our military tribunals and how they gradually morphed from Major Andre's Court of Inquiry in Revolutionary times to what they are now,
but we do know that the same rights we fought for in the birth of our nation are needed now more than ever. What's happening to "Them" could very well happen to "Us".
So since we know the truly important things, the values that make us who we are and set us apart and the laws and procedures that reflect those core values, we must challenge our leaders to resist the tempation of calling this a "different war".
"We are fighting people with no moral codes, they will do anything to inflict harm on us!" -Some will say.
"If we back down now, we will lose credibility in the war on terror!" -Others will proclaim.
But we must not lose our own moral stature in order to defeat those we accuse of being immoral, for in doing so, we will become the very creature we will have sold our soul to defeat.
Posted by: JoeDuran at July 10, 2006 06:00 PMTo learn more about this topic here are some sites to kick some knowledge:
Provides links to background material on Military Commissions
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/commissions.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr200408241164.html
(Hicks v. Bush)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2004/d20041104update.pdf
Military Commissions to Resume
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr200507184063.html
And google "Military Law Review Volume 186 Winter 2005" Some interesting stuff should pop up.
See, if you take the time to Git-mo knowledge yourself, you can be a better citizen and make it impossible to be fooled by the pro-Gitmo crowd.
Gitmo drift?
Posted by: BW at July 10, 2006 09:33 PMWhy is it so hard for this administration to realize that if we are going to promote the rule of law and basic human rights throughout the world that we should start at home? This is just another example of the administration's "Do as I say, not as I do" policies.
Posted by: Steve at July 10, 2006 11:11 PMShocking that so many can be so Pro-Terrorists rights. As Osama bin Laden says, "The difference is that they value life, we value death". Yay! Lets give these guys more rights!
Posted by: Roman at July 10, 2006 11:44 PMSo you listen to Osama alot?
Posted by: BJG at July 11, 2006 12:35 AM"But we must not lose our own moral stature in order to defeat those we accuse of being immoral, for in doing so, we will become the very creature we will have sold our soul to defeat."
...so according to Roman, we must ask ourselves..."WWWOD"..What would Osama do??
Posted by: Lily at July 11, 2006 12:40 AMThe shocking contrast here is that people like myself worry how can we go about fighting and killing people whose only goal in life is to go out like a martyr and take as many innocent lives with them as they can.
Liberals worry about how to protect the rights of people whose only goal in life is to go out like a martyr and take as many innocent lives with them as they can. Its very cute, I must say.
Posted by: Roman at July 11, 2006 10:20 AM"even during our toughest times we must not allow the sometimes insatiable quest for expanded executive power..." WOW! What a complete mis-read of this decision...this was a expansion of judicial powers if anything!
This decision confers constitutional rights to the enemy granting them jurisdiction in our civilian courts...something the much vaunted Geneva Conventions specifically excludes! Did any of you bother to read: this mess of a decision, The Geneva Convention, or for that matter the Constitution??
[ Off-topic troll comments and responses deleted. ]
Posted by: admin at July 13, 2006 04:57 PMI noticed the flamer's post was deleted, which is probably for the best considering this board is about exchanging legitimate political and social comments, and not an outlet for repressed basement dwellers to spew insecurities obviously stemming from an embarrassingly small weenie.
Posted by: JSM at July 13, 2006 05:34 PMMore Legal Trouble at Gitmo:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1217742,00.html?cnn=yes
Posted by: Flavia at July 22, 2006 11:14 AMLet me know if you see my link here?
http://hometown.aol.de/joreczh/cialisbuy.html#cialis
[url=http://hometown.aol.de/joreczh/cialisbuy.html#cialis]buy cialis[/url]
buy cialis