It has been said that a society should be judged by how it
treats its weakest members, and prisoners certainly fall in to that category.
Before I go much further let me make it clear that I’m not advocating that
those who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (whatever that is) get to play
in meadows with unicorns and rainbows, but I also believe we should treat every human being with
dignity and follow the rule of law in all cases.
Prisoners in Guantánamo are so
fed up with their situations that 100 of them are on a hunger strike! According to this document on Guantanamo:
- 86 detainees have been cleared for release since 2009. However, the US government refuses to allow them to return to their homes or otherwise release them. The most common theory on why that is: these detainees have been treated so badly they’ll certainly join the opposition, al-Qaeda, or somehow set out to harm us. Shouldn’t that be a lesson in itself on how we treat people?
- The US doesn’t have sufficient evidence to prosecute 46 prisoners, but those 46 are apparently too dangerous to release. How can we be certain enough to detain someone indefinitely, though, if we don’t have sufficient evidence to prosecute?
- Remember when Obama campaigned on closing Gitmo? Well, it appears he wasn’t incredibly serious about that: 532 prisoners were released by the Bush administration. 72 by the Obama administration. I understand there other powers and factors at work in that numbers game too. If only the President had the power to release prisoners and challenge the flawed system that put them there…
- Only 5% of the prisoners were even captured by American troops.
I’ll stop paraphrasing, but I highly recommend you read the
whole thing. It’s an easy read.
I could have been home years ago — no one seriously thinks I am a threat — but still I am here. Years ago the military said I was a “guard” for Osama bin Laden, but this was nonsense, like something out of the American movies I used to watch. They don’t even seem to believe it anymore. But they don’t seem to care how long I sit here, either.
I just hope that because of the pain we are suffering, the eyes of the world will once again look to Guantánamo before it is too late.
Again, I recommend you take the time to read the entire Op
Ed.
Out of sign, out of mind. According to President Obama this is one of the reasons closing the prison at Guantánamo is “a hard case to
make.” So let’s change that. Let’s put pressure on those in power to move on
this ever important issue. Let’s pressure the media to report on the hunger strike and the apparently innocent people imprisoned there.
Let’s get people talking about it. Our friends, our families. It has to start somewhere. Let us not continue to ignore the atrocities
happening in our name.
If you’re not convinced this is important simply because
what is happening here is morally and ethically wrong, think about this: The 2012 NDAA (signed by Obama) allows for indefinite detention of anyone captured anywhere in the world without charge or trial. That could be you detained
indefinitely without sufficient evidence to prosecute. Think that couldn’t
possibly happen to an American citizen? Google Anwar al-Awlaki and/or
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Both American citizens. Both killed by the CIA in targeted drone
strikes in Yemen. No trial. No due process.
A lot has changed since NDAA was all the rage in the media during the latter half '11, for instance the President recently issued a policy directive to provide protections for US citizens on US soil in addition to other measures to counter much of section 1022 -- the section that drew the most ire. Here is a copy of the directive: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/ppd-14.pdf and for a shorter read, an article on what the directive says: http://verdict.justia.com/2012/02/29/chipping-away-at-the-ndaa
ReplyDeleteI don't have issue with the majority of your piece. I am against Guantamo being open. I just think if your going to include NDAA has reason to be against it, people should be aware that under this Administration the full language of the law is not and will not be fully utilized. Aside: one's moral compas is a little off if the only reason one is against forced feeding and no due process is because it can happen to them. But, then again, I'm universalist not a particularist.
One last side note: provide a link to a petition supporting the Due Process Guarantee Act. Tell Montanans to call Max, Jon, and Daines about supporting this bill from Sen. Feinstein. That seems to be the best avenue towards doing away NDAA.
I completely agree that "it could happen to me" is a sad reason to care, but for many this is the only call to action that carries any merit. Further, I do expect due process from my government whether I'm on US soil or in a foreign country, something Anwar al-Awlaki & Abdulrahman al-Awlaki were not afforded. Furthermore, the existence of the language does not prevent future administrations from using it. I will definitely provide a link to the survey & share the call to action! Thanks!
ReplyDeleteJust a few questions regarding Anwar al-Awalaki, I do feel bad and regret his son's death, but his I do not:
ReplyDelete1. Do Americans who leave the country to join terrorist networks forfeit the rights given to other Americans? Does it matter if those terrorist networks are targeting the United States? (Think in lines of treason.)
2. If the United States is at war with al Qaeda, is there an expectation that we would execute that war differently when dealing with American members of al Qaeda?
Anwar al-Awlaki left his civilian life to pursue the role of unlawful combatant in an armed conflict. A US person who engages “in armed combat against the United States” is engaged in an act of treason. Further, he took a leadership role in an al-Qaida affiliate, and was hidden in Yemen, beyond the reach of U.S. and international law enforcement that could have brought him to trial. The rights afforded to him as a U.S. citizen no longer protected his conduct, and he was given fair warning of that fact. If Anwar al-Awlaki was involved in terrorist plots against the United States, then, the President not only has the constitutional discretion (2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force) to defend the country by striking at al-Awlaki but, under his oath of office, he has a positive duty to do so.