Obama mulls 'indefinite detention' of terror suspects
AFP
WASHINGTON (AFP) – As part of its plans to close Guantanamo Bay, the Obama administration is considering holding some of the detainees indefinitely and without trial on US soil, US media reported Thursday. Fulls story here.
You know, I've read a lot of posts from conservative bloggers about President Obama breaking promises, or failing to deliver the changes he said he would (see
Coffee Bean's blog here, or
Reverse_Vampyr's here.)
Until this point, I'd taken all that criticism with a pinch of salt - after all, many of Obama's detractors (especially on conservative talk radio) descended into childish petulance simply because he won the White House.
But now Obama's broken a promise I'd believed in, too - that America would
cease the sketchy shenanigans occurring in Guantanemo Bay. While Obama has decided to close that detention facility, he's now pondering the continued indefinite imprisonment of 'terror suspects' without charge or trial.
This is a total
volte-face on his campaign promise, when he pledged to end the Bush administration's policy of locking people up without any accountability. That behavior is just
wrong - especially when it's done by a country that prides itself on representing freedom, liberty and justice throughout the world.
Now since I first started opinionating on the subject, I have received
quite an education (largely from regular contributor
Tom) that has clarified why the Bush administration felt empowered to imprison people without any regard to
habeus corpus: We're at war.
In World War II, for example, nobody expected to offer German prisoners of war trials or tribunals - and they certainly didn't get released or sent home until
after the war was over.
But the 'War on Terror' has always been a fuzzy, poorly defined conflict and in recent months, that 'war' has dropped off the radar completely (Obama's given it the less emotive title of 'Overseas Contingency Operation')
The detainees in Guantanemo aren't 'enemy combatants.' They're not criminal detainees, either. They're not 'anything,' really. It's this lack of designation which gave the Bush administration the loophole to lock them up indefinitely (the Bush administration even tried to deny them the basic human rights granted under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.)
Now, I'm not arguing that the detainees aren't potentially dangerous people - terrorists committed to causing terror and destruction across the free world. I'm just arguing that America - the 'land of the free' - has a responsibility to set an example to the rest of the world in how we deal with people in our power.
If the detainees at Guantanamo Bay
are dangerous terrorists - people who have committed atrocities already and threaten to commit more if they're released - then we
should continue to lock them up to protect America and the rest of the world.
However, we first need to establish
by fact of law that these prisoners committed the crimes for which they were detained. Secondly, and more importantly, we need to establish that they
pose a continued threat to world peace.
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if these facts are established in a court of law or a military tribunal - but they
do need to be established and it
does need to done in a transparent, accountable environment.
It's not even that difficult. A detainee stands trial for throwing a hand grenade at an American soldier in Afghanistan? That soldier's testimony is enough to convice me he's guilty - and would be lobbing more grenades if given the opportunity again.
Sentence him and lock him up.
I'm a reasonable, rational guy. It wouldn't take much to convince me that a detainee is a dangerous terrorist and should remained locked up. However, I still deserve to hear that case made.
I don't trust the government enough to blindly hand them authority over other people's lives.I'm not suggesting that the detainees deserve (or even appreciate) the concept of a 'fair trial' or basic legal rights or protections - but
this is America, a country which was established on the ideal of justice
for all. We can't claim to be principled people if we turn our back on those principles as soon as it's politically convenient.
The Founding Fathers rebelled against Britain for many reasons, including because King George III suspended their
habeus corpus rights during colonial squabbles and denied those accused of smuggling, piracy, treason or sedition fair trials in their homeland (shipping some off to England for trial, or sentencing others without letting them plead their case in front of a jury.)
These rights are an
essential, foundational part of what America stands for - and even in the midst of a 'War on Terror,' we need to stick to them.
Yesterday, I rail about how you've broke the promise to end the unethical detention of 'terror suspects' - and now you've delivered everything that I argued for! Yesterday's point was... erm... pointless?
