Quizas ... Quizas ... Quizas – Indeed

In a prior article, the quandary about finally ending the travesty of the US Military Guantanamo Bay [GITMO] Prison Camp was put forward. Perhaps, indeed! Consider this recent news release:

June 23, 2008 - Washington, DC - A federal appeals court for the first time has rejected the military's designation of a Guantanamo detainee as an enemy combatant.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned as "invalid" a military tribunal's conclusion that prisoner Huzaifa Parhat is an enemy combatant.

The court directed the Pentagon either to release or transfer Parhat or to hold a new tribunal hearing "consistent with the court's opinion."

To put a finer point on the subject, the US military had recommended the release of this prisoner as a possible mistaken imprisonment as early as 2003. Yet the man has remained in jail for over six years because of the arrogance of the Bush Administration and its failure to admit that its policies have been wrong, or at least incorrectly applied in at least some cases. By the standards and “logic” apparently applied by the military authorities under the direction of the Bush Administration, any person who has attended training at the US School of the Americas could or should be held in prison indefinitely and labeled an “enemy combatant.” Parhat had attended a paramilitary training camp because of his desire to support a group that opposes China’s domination of a traditional ethnic region and its people –Uighurs. Parhat claimed he did not know who or what group ultimately funded the camp, but that he never was a member or even involved in any way with the Taliban or the struggle in Afghanistan. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the US military knew this. The evidence showed this to be true. Yet they held him anyway.

Now the more proper role of the US court system has been partially restored and Parhat had the chance to appeal his denomination as “enemy combatant.” the Federal court ruled that the designation was invalid after reviewing the evidence. This process has done absolutely no violence to the “national security” of the United States. It has, however, shown that abuses of Constitutional and international human rights can be addressed and corrected, if the court system is allowed to function as it was intended.

Perhaps the country will begin to see and believe that you cannot save a democracy or a country by destroying or ignoring the very fundamental principles upon which it was founded. Perhaps the sad saga of GITMO can move toward an ending, with the help and not so gentle prodding of the US courts applying principles of the Constitution.

Perhaps GITMO Can Finally Be Closed

Perhaps the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay [GITMO] can finally be closed. Perhaps we can begin to heal that festering sore on the conscience of a nation founded upon the principle that a megalomaniacal despot cannot arbitrarily imprison people. The US Constitution, written centuries ago, incorporated what seemed to most Americans (until about five years ago) to be a very simple and basic principle. To justify imprisoning someone, the government must put forward at least some evidence that (1) the person is actually the person they intended to imprison, and (2) that there are at least some credible grounds for detaining the person. A dangerous person can, of course, be held in custody before and until trial. However, there must be some charges asserted and it is reasonable to allow the detainee to test the credibility of those charges to ascertain whether there is at least probable cause to believe that they can be proven. Even reciting these very fundamental concepts seems a bit simplistic and pedantic. However, for the past five years, the Bush Administration has suspended these fundamental Constitutional principles. That course of action has undercut the moral authority with which the United States had been able to negotiate with other countries and leaders about basic human rights.

The Bush Administration argues that because the detainees are not US citizens and are being held on soil that is not US [although there is no dispute that the location is under US control], the actions are not subject to Constitutional protections. The argument has been purportedly bolstered by doubtful claims that “National Security” may be put at risk if these detainees were allowed to contest their imprisonment. Indeed the Bush Administration argues that even allowing the detainees the right to legal counsel or to notify their families that they are alive would threaten National Security.

A similar argument was tried in an attempt to nullify the restrictions on torture incorporated in the Geneva Conventions. But the whole idea of basing a policy or a doctrine upon characterizing people as less than human beings is a slippery slope that leads to destruction of principled government and morality. Slavery and torture are the end products of such faulty reasoning. The rule of law assumes that some people are capable of doing very bad things. Their alleged actions do not negate their humanity, and they can be subjected to lengthy and severe punishment if proven guilty of serious crimes, including murder and terrorism.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America recently ruled that the rule of Habeas Corpus, the right of the imprisoned to test the basis for their detention, is still viable. The Court ruled that a President does not have the discretion of the power to supersede the US Constitution. Prior rulings by the Supreme Court were half measures that lacked the courage and definitive force of this last one. Holding that federal statutes gave prisoners a right to a fair trial only led to a GOP controlled Congress amending those statutes. However, the latest decision based its authority on the Constitution itself. There is a legal principle that a creation of statute or law [the Constitution being the highest governing national law] cannot rise above the authority from which it derives its power and existence. Simply put, the Presidency is a constitutional office. Therefore the President has no power to override the limits of the US Constitution.

However, that Constitutional limitation on Presidential power is precisely what Bush policy disregards. Bush and Cheney assert that in times of “emergency” the President has the ability to suspend the constitution. This argument is put forward despite the fact that the “emergency” is a manufactured crisis based upon an unnecessary and probably illegal invasion of Iraq. Rejecting the Bush contention, Justice Kennedy declared: “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the detainees have the basic right to challenge the reason for their imprisonment, the US government has the ironic opportunity to restore some of its integrity and reputation. By forcing the government to put forth evidence that the personas being jailed for years really warrant incarceration, the Supreme Court has compelled the Bush administration to establish some measure of integrity. The acknowledgment and acceptance of international social and legal conventions of humane treatment of prisoners does no weaken a nation or threaten national security. To the contrary, it establishes a foundation of moral and legal authority that supports the imposition of justice and punishment upon people who violate legal and societal norms. No one would attempt to justify a vicious terrorist act by a GITMO prisoner. However, punishing the person without ever advancing charges based upon probable cause and offering proof that the person is guilty is inhumane and un-American. Perhaps we can now put a stop to this odious practice by the Bush Administration and allow the rule of law and principles of justice work as they were intended.

George W. Bush Still Does Not “Get It.”

After all of this time and experience, George W. Bush still does not “get it.” He has reacted with petulance that his so-called “generous” offer of incentives to Iran for stopping uranium enrichment were rejected out of hand. The President’s ego refuses to allow him to see the world as most others do. What most of us would expect to happen based upon logic and common sense is still a surprise to Bush. The real damage that the Bush Administration has done to the US prestige is something that the President is obviously unable to see or accept. No one has faith or trust in the US when under the leadership of George W. Bush. They respect the US people, but reject the US government.

After Bush and Cheney have spent months, if not years, sounding a constant drumbeat of threats to bomb and invade Iran, does anyone really wonder why Iran would be resistant to any proposal by the Bush Administration? After the unnecessary invasion of Iraq and the extended occupation based upon what Bush now calls an “invitation” by the Iraqi people, does anyone wonder why Iran would be suspicious of any overtures of friendly assistance from Bush? After the blatant disregard of national sovereignty by the Bush Administration toward Iraq, including the move to rewrite the Iraqi Constitution and shove it down the throats of Iraqi citizens, is there really any surprise that Tehran would rebuff a “collaborative” agreement that would bring US advisors into Iran to supervise any part of its national energy program?

The question about uranium enrichment is a difficult one. Perhaps Iran does have some designs on the future development of weapons grade uranium, which experts put at least 5 years in the future in the most aggressive time horizon. But the history of lies and distortion by the Bush Administration, and the manipulation of intelligence to support a covert agenda have resulted in a subterranean level of credibility for Bush assertions and characterizations about the status and intentions of Iran. Like the little boy who foolishly cried wolf, even if his assertions have some merit they are not likely to be heard or believed when coming from his mouth.

In a less hostile environment, less than the one created and being maintained by Bush and Cheney toward Iran, the rationale that Iran is developing nuclear energy sources to supply local consumption needs and to conserve oil would seem a plausible and intelligent national policy. The nasty political environment being advanced by Bush would also cause a prudent government in Iran to keep options open for development of any defensive or offensive military weapon. Simply put, if any government feels that it is being threatened it will be inclined to turn plowshares into swords. But in a less threatening environment it will be more inclined to turn swords into plowshares. In this regard, Bush’s own arrogance is a primary motivating cause of the perceived need to intervene in Iraq to halt uranium enrichment. But that arrogance also ignores the fact that EVERY country has sovereign rights, and that the US has no right to dictate internal policy for another country as Bush seems to want to do.

Any major diplomatic initiative made by the current Administration is likely to be met with the same level of suspicion and lukewarm reception as was the proposal to Iran. Regardless of the merits of any proposal, the simple fact is that most leaders know that they cannot trust George W. Bush. As an international statesman or leader he is an abject failure. They also know that Bush will be out of office in January, only 6 months away, and that any real progress toward resolution of any existing problems will have to wait until Bush is out of the picture. Having almost completely destroyed the credibility of the US in international relations, Bush should simply go away quietly and allow his successors the opportunity to try to repair the damage

Untruth: “Old News is No News”

The recent Report from the senate Intelligence Committee includes a stinging rebuke of the Bush Administration deception in leading [goading] the country into an unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Many examples of abuse of authority and deliberate distortion or fabrication of justifications for the invasion that were unsupported by available intelligence are detailed in the report. This is yet another “official” report to document existing evidence of malfeasance in office on the part of the George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their administration. The Senate Intelligence Committee Report does not, however, raise the issue of what consequences should arise from such dangerous and fraudulent conduct that has cost the US thousands of lives and Billions of dollars.

To be sure, the GOP and apologists will dismiss the report[1] as inconsequential “old news” and they will in some way be correct. Yet the Holocaust is also “old news” and news that is still based upon horrible facts that the public needs to be reminded about, lest it be allowed to reoccur. The patent disrespect for the American people and disregard for their oath of office deserve public mention and further discussion. This is particularly true in light of recent GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s pronouncements that he has always supported the decision to invade Iraq and would do it over again if presented the choice. The public needs to be alerted and to make an informed decision about who will occupy the White House after Bush leaves.

Consider also that Sen. McCain recently stated publicly that he too would suspend Constitutional rights of free speech and privacy to spy on Americans as Bush has done under the guise of “National Security” that was hyped because of the threat of terrorism also “marketed” to the public as justification for the Iraq invasion. So the public should consider not only the risk of another wrongheaded and catastrophic decision like the invasion of Iraq from the new President, but also the myriad of related and consequential decisions and actions that would flow from such a mindset.

Discussion of the failures in the run up to the Iraq invasion also must include analysis of why the “loyal opposition” failed to respond in any meaningful way. It is true that “you can fool some of the people some of the time” especially when the people have been cowed by fear mongering. However, the failure of Democratic elected officials to closely scrutinize the decision to invade and to question the veracity of the so-called intelligence evidence used by Bush to justify the alleged threat warrants further scrutiny. Why were so few willing to display the courage to say that “the Emperor has no clothes” as the innocent little boy shouted in the story? Cowardice based upon fear that their patriotism might be challenged or that campaign donations might fall off is not an admirable quality in our elected leaders, whether GOP or Democrat. What qualities will the electorate demand in the fall general election for representatives and senators being sent [or returned] to Congress?

Just because the issues and the facts are not “new” does not make them any less important or make discussion of them any less merited. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes. And we simply cannot afford to make mistakes of this magnitude again. In this regard, “old news” is definitely worth our attention.

---

[1] "The report released today was a waste of committee time and resources," said a conclusion signed by Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the ranking Republican on the committee, and three of his colleagues. Bond accused Democrats of "a partisan agenda" and said they had "cherry-picked information and distorted policymakers' statements."

The document was approved in April on a 10-5 vote, with two of the committee's seven Republicans siding with Democrats to endorse its release.

Those two, Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, said in a statement Thursday that they had some misgivings but hoped future administrations would "learn from this comprehensive review and avoid making similar mistakes."