Two days after coming to power on Jan. 20, 2009, US President Barack Obama signed an executive order pledging to close down the prison camp within a year. By the end of 2009, he was forced to admit that this self-imposed deadline would not be met.His efforts have just suffered a further setback with the recent bombing attempt of an American airliner flying from Amsterdam to Detroit. Under pressure to tighten security measures, the White House has announced it would freeze all transfers of Yemeni prisoners, who account for nearly half of the prison’s current population. Over 30 Yemeni detainees had already been cleared for release but will now remain in custody until further notice.
At the height of George Bush’s “War on Terror,” the camp held up to 750 detainees. Dozens have been repatriated and others transferred to third countries willing to accept them.
But human rights groups are urging the US administration to redouble efforts to put an end to a system of detention that ignores the legal guarantees offered by the US Constitution and openly flouts international law.
Closing Guantanamo would only be a first step toward that goal. There are plans to build a new super-maximum security prison in Illinois and a handful of detainees, including the suspected masterminds of the Sept. 11 attacks, will face trial in federal courts on the mainland. While these are moves in the right direction, human rights groups are concerned that the administration is keeping all its options open.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently complained that federal courts will only try the cases built on solid evidence. Others may be tried in front of military commissions, which place the bar lower for the burden of proof, while indefinite detention has not been ruled out for detainees who are considered a threat but whose files are not sufficient to withstand the scrutiny of trial. “Should the administration continue to hold the detainees without charge, it will not be closing Guantanamo but moving the prison to Illinois,” Human Rights Watch recently pointed out.
Terrorism remains a real threat as evidenced by the latest scare. But the temptation is to focus solely on intelligence failures and tighten security without examining closely the policies that fuel anger and provide a fertile ground for radicalism. The mentality behind Guantanamo is not limited to the US but has spread worldwide, undermining the gains recorded in human rights over the past few decades.
While most of the media focus recently has been on body scanners and other measures of airport safety, veteran UPI White House journalist Helen Thomas, aged 89, was the only reporter who repeatedly asked why terrorists were intent on harming her country and what their motivation might be during a recent briefing by President Obama and his security officials.
No single factor can explain terrorism, but undermining the very values and legal provisions that provide the foundation for democratic rule is certainly not the best way to isolate the radicals and eradicate it.
To many around the world, Guantanamo and the policies it embodies have come to symbolize injustice and Western double standards. The sooner the remaining cases can be referred to independent courts and this shameful chapter of recent Western history can be closed, the easier it will be to convince people in the developing world that democratic values apply to all and are worth fighting for.
