Regardless of who wins the Presidency in November-Mr. Kerry or President Bush-Guantanamo Bay, and its use as a makeshift limbo for “captured” suspects, must be completely rethought and overhauled. Next to the treatment of Jose Padilla, an American citizen captured on American soil who, for over a year, was denied basic civil rights and kept from representation with no scheduled proceedings until federal courts in both New York and San Francisco intervened, the Administration’s handling of these prisoners has been their worst affront to the values of this country.
These transgressions are as troubling as they are basic. For example, Human Rights Watch has reported that the Pentagon will refuse three human rights organizations from observing the proposed military tribunals in store at some undetermined time for these people. There is most certainly a distinction to be drawn between the rights of citizens of the United States under the Constitution and those rights afforded internationals under applicable conventions. Yet, that the U.S. would propose trials without proper observation, and without due process that remotely resembles what this nation’s citizens expect, casts a dark shadow over President Bush’s rhetoric of divinely granted freedoms. Clearly, God does not reach into Gitmo.
Aside from the philosophical difficulties presented by Gitmo, there are deeply concerning practical ones that deserve attention. The Guardian recently reported the capture and release of one Asadullah. Asadullah reported his experience at Gitmo: he was well fed, educated, and felt his American captors were kind, much more so than the average Afghani. Unfortunately, Asadullah is 14 years old. No amount of leave to the beach to snorkel can erase the fact that this boy, who twice each month was interrogated on topics of which he had no knowledge (the Taliban and al-Qaeda), had prime years of his life taken away by the US without any formal legal procedure.
Asadullah is not alone. There have been countless reports of the U.S. forces in Gitmo quietly repatriating Afghanis who had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The typical story goes as follows: rival males in a random village become aware of the enormous US awards for information about al-Qaeda members, at which point, they rush to inform on their completely uninvolved rival in the hope that US soldiers will arrest him-which would in turn leave the village unchallenged. That the U.S. can be manipulated by uneducated villagers is but one testament to the frailty of the existing system.
What’s worse, the U.S. has been treating citizens of our allies in this manner as well. Just recently, the BBC reported that the “Guantanamo four,” all UK citizens, have been held under the 2000 Terrorism Act far beyond the allowed 14 day period; in fact, it took over two years to get the release of two of them, both with no official charges.
Looking forward, the United States would do well to cease walking the legal and moral tightrope over Gitmo. In Coalition of Clergy vs. Bush, the Bush Administration has claimed the Constitution does not reach Gitmo because the island is still under Cuba’s sovereignty. However, the U.S. presence on the island stems from a 1903 lease and a 1934 treaty that granted “complete control and jurisdiction” over Gitmo. It has been argued that the 1946 case of Application of Yamashita has established that detainees on lands not officially sovereign US territory will have their case heard on its merits, something being denied at this point to those in Gitmo.
In sum, the current situation in Guantanamo is untenable philosophically, practically, and likely legally. A reappraisal of how we treat young boys, our ally’s citizens, and those within territory under “complete” U.S. jurisdiction is overdue. President Bush needs to bring his tactics in line with his rhetoric if he wishes to make as strong a possible claim for another four years.