Civil Libertarians Reject Obama’s Guantanamo Closure Plan

By
Friday, February 05, 2010 at 6:00 am
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay (The Toronto Star/ZUMApress.com)

Detainees at Guantanamo Bay (The Toronto Star/ZUMApress.com)

If there was any doubt that Republicans in Congress will oppose this year’s push from President Obama to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) speech Wednesday to the Heritage Foundation ought to have laid it to rest. In the course of a half hour’s worth of invective against the administration’s counterterrorism policies, the Senate minority leader pledged to block funding for any efforts at giving terrorism detainees trials in civilian courts. But he held out a special reverence for the much-vilified locus for military commissions and indefinite detention. “Thankfully, Gitmo is still open for business,” McConnell said.

[Security1] McConnell then turned, briefly, to an argument that is starting to be shared by McConnell’s typical political enemies — and which could seriously complicate the administration’s plans for the final closure of Guantanamo Bay. If Obama simply moves the military commissions and indefinite detentions featured at Guantanamo to a new detention facility in Thomson, Ill. — as the administration currently plans –then there is “no doubt” that al-Qaeda will use Thomson “for the same recruiting and propaganda purposes” it’s used toward Guantanamo, McConnell said, a prospect that “eliminates the administration’s only justification for closing Guantanamo.”

With reluctance, many in the civil-liberties community think McConnell has a point. They have no patience for McConnell’s argument that terrorism detainees should not receive civilian trials. But the administration’s plan to close Guantanamo, from their perspective, merely transfers its most offensive practices to the middle of Illinois. In what they see as a tragic irony, the cohort that led the charge during the Bush administration to shutter the Guantanamo facility is increasingly vocal in opposing Obama’s already-imperiled path to shutting it down.

“What’s the point of simply moving Guantanamo on shore?” said Shayana Kadidal, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. Chris Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said flatly, “We oppose any legislative proposal that links the purchase of Thomson to indefinite detention without charge and the use of military commissions.”

The coalescing civil-libertarian opposition to the Thomson plan now has a legislative target. Robert Hale, the Pentagon’s comptroller, announced on Monday that the $159 billion funding request for next year’s operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will contain a $350 million “transfer fund” for detainee operations that will authorize the administration to “let us open the Thomson, Illinois, site.” Placing the money for buying Thomson from Illinois — a necessary step toward transferring those Guantanamo detainees that will not be tried in federal civilian court to the prison –effectively dares critics to face accusations of not supporting the troops in Afghanistan if they try to block funding for for the Guantanamo closure.

At least one question about Thomson that civil libertarians consider crucial remains unanswered by the Obama administration. The administration has stated clearly that Thomson is designed to house detainees tried before military commissions, as occurs at Guantanamo. But it has been much vaguer about embracing or renouncing the even more contentious prospect of indefinite detention, Guantanamo’s other chief feature.

Last month, a year-long interagency task force on Guantanamo detainees recommended to the White House that the administration ought to continue to hold about 50 detainees indefinitely without charge, claiming simultaneously that there is insufficient evidence to convict them before either civilian or military courts but that their release would jeopardize national security. An administration official who would not discuss ongoing deliberations on the record said that the National Security Council is still reviewing the task force’s recommendations. “You should not consider them already accepted,” the official said, but cautioned that there is no timetable for formal adoption, rejection or modification of the recommendations, since “detainees’ status’ could change, based on the status of their habeas case [or] the situation on the ground in a receiving country” to which the detainees’ might be transferred.

With the arrival of a funding mechanism for Thomson on Capitol Hill, that vagueness leaves the civil liberties community unable to say that the administration has ruled out holding detainees indefinitely without charge, a bedrock principle of every civil libertarian organization, and unable to distinguish Thomson’s planned activities from Guantanamo’s objectionable ones. “If all we’re doing is exporting Guantanamo to Thomson for purposes of military commissions and indefinite detention,” said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project, “we’re very strongly opposed to that.”

Devon Chaffee, who handles national-security issues for Human Rights First, cautioned that the contours of the Thomson legislation were not yet fully defined. But, she said, “Human Rights First will continue to oppose indefinite detention without trial and the use of a flawed military commission procedure regardless of where it’s implemented. As long as the U.S. continues those policies, it will fail to overcome the policy mistakes that made Guantanamo a stigma. Those are two positions of ours that are not going to change.”

As a result of the administration’s vagueness about continuing to hold detainees at Thomson indefinitely without charge, the $350 million funding vehicle could unite liberal congressional opponents of indefinite detention with conservative congressional advocates of it. And the Obama administration does not have much legislative margin for error, even on a request as normally politically sacrosanct as war funding. Like with the defense budget overall, the Iraq and Afghanistan money for next year, formally known as the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund, must be authorized by the Senate and House armed-services committees before the formal appropriation is taken up by the Senate and House appropriations committees, all preceding full votes before the Senate and House. Republicans in the Senate proved willing in December to filibuster the defense appropriations bill in a failed bid to stop Obama’s health-care reform package. A potential alliance of convenience between Republicans who want to keep Guantanamo open and liberal Democrats who want to prevent Thomson from becoming a new Guantanamo could jeopardize the measure’s passage.

Anders said that if the Thomson plan was “reconfigured for the pre-trial detention and post-conviction sentencing of people tried in [federal] courts we might very well take a very different position,” holding out the prospect of the administration earning civil libertarian support by shuttering both Guantanamo and its policies. But, he added, “that’s not how it’s being set up.”

That isn’t a consensus position among civil libertarians. David Remes, a lawyer for several Guantanamo detainees and the executive director of the Appeal for Justice, a human-rights legal practice, said he opposes Thomson under any circumstances. “Number one, I oppose preventive detention in principle, and number two, I don’t see how spending a lot of money to change the zip code moves the ball forward,” Remes said. “I’m not in favor of moving anything to Thomson. There really is no difference between being tried in Gitmo North versus Gitmo South.”

Nor has the civil libertarian community been consulted on the plan, a position that many consider to have effectively cut off the administration from potential outside messaging surrogates. “The community has been frustrated working with the administration on this because we’ve been available and more than willing to help defend policies we think are the right ways to close Guantanamo,” Sloan said. “They haven’t really done that here. We feel we’re behind the eight ball.”

Shuttering Guantanamo within one year was among of Obama’s first pledges in office. But the deadline slipped after numerous congressional missteps, including a dramatic Senate vote in May, embraced by 90 senators, to prohibit funding to “transfer, release, or incarcerate” Guantanamo detainees in the United States. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Democratic leader, insisted then that the vote was mostly symbolic and any administration plan to close Guantanamo would receive careful Senate consideration.

But the opposition to the administration’s plans for closing Guantanamo is increasing, even among those who ultimately want the U.S. to be rid of all forms of indefinite detention. Anders said that for the ACLU, “The goal has never been changing the geography. The goal is to close both Guantanamo and the policies that are problematic there — the use of military commissions and indefinite detention. Transferring those policies to Thomson is something we oppose.”

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter


Comments

16 Comments

Civil Libertarians Reject Obama’s Guantanamo Closure Plan | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Pingback posted February 5, 2010 @ 9:52 am

[...] story: Civil Libertarians Reject Obama’s Guantanamo Closure Plan – The Washington Independent Tags: ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, Cuba, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, Guantanamo Bay [...]


uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted February 5, 2010 @ 10:00 am

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: Civil Libertarians Reject Obama’s Guantanamo Closure Plan http://bit.ly/aNA1EF...


hello01589
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 9:14 am

Welcome to our website: http://www.wowhotsale.com
The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,adidas, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time.

free shipping
competitive price
any size available
We do wholesale and retail! All are extremely CHEAP, please visit: http://www.wowhotsale.com
ghdrhre


Hawaiianstyle
Comment posted February 8, 2010 @ 2:34 pm

First the Republican opposition comments are irrelevant because they oppose everything which destroys their credibility.

Second terrorists are criminals that commit crimes against humanity. We are trapped into killing our youth and going broke financially because we let the politicians define our opposition to terror as a “War on…”

By defining anything as a war on we eliminate other better solutions to a problem. If we would have followed the international criminal path we could have used existing local, national, and international police forces, established courts, and existing prisons to handle terrorists. We have done this in the past and it worked. We would also still have the respect of the international community and they as well would have been allies in fighting terrorism.

Guantanamo if it were simply a prison at a different location might not be so bad, but it is a gulag. It is an out of sight political prison that has allowed abuses to go unseen, abuses such as water boarding and even murder. It further leads to prisons in other countries as well as rendition to places like Syria and Egypt that torture.

There is no good reason that we cannot capture, prosecute and jail criminals here in the US. Further if we know that we are going to have to follow our established justice system we will be diligent in chains of evidence, habeas corpus, lawyers, etc. all the things that DIFFERENTIATE us from terrorist “justice” procedures like our use of kangaroo courts, i.e., military commissions.

If we act like third world dictatorships, if we treat humans like terrorists by torture, rendition, and all the other abuses then terrorism becomes an argument about political systems. It will simply be a, “you do it too vs. yah but we are the good guys argument.”

If we follow our Constitutional / Bill of Rights laws and “legally” convict terrorists we can morally, rightfully, claim the good, moral, legal ground vs. illegal, criminal terrorism. ground.

As a patriotic American I think that is important.


rodneyc68
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 2:07 pm

Though I get GITMO, I for one think an uninhabited island on the Aleutian chain would server a better purpose than Cuba and fix the PR problem Cuba has all together. No more year round 80 degree temps.


rodneyc68
Comment posted February 11, 2010 @ 7:07 pm

Though I get GITMO, I for one think an uninhabited island on the Aleutian chain would server a better purpose than Cuba and fix the PR problem Cuba has all together. No more year round 80 degree temps.


Civil Libertarians Reject Obama’s Guantanamo Closure Plan: Critics Withhold Support for Move to Buy “Gitmo North” « My Thomson Gitmo
Pingback posted February 19, 2010 @ 9:38 am

[...] Civil Libertarians Reject Obama’s Guantanamo Closure Plan: Critics Withhold Support for Move to Bu… [...]


Barack Obama: marcia indietro sulla chiusura di Guantanamo ? - Mondo - Panorama.it
Pingback posted March 8, 2010 @ 6:27 am

[...] presidente. Il quale sarebbe costretto a fare di necessità virtù, rimangiandosi uno dei pilastri basilari della sua elezione, un anno [...]


Education Department buying 12-gauge shotguns | Western Journalism.com | Guns Blog | Colt | 1911
Pingback posted March 26, 2010 @ 5:25 am

[...] Civil Libertarians Reject Obama’s Guantanamo Closure Plan « The Washington Independent [...]


Obama’s Plans Is the “Wrong Way to Close Guantanamo,” Groups Warn « Solitary Watch
Pingback posted April 10, 2010 @ 8:29 pm

[...] civil libertarians and human rights groups for some time, as Spencer Ackerman described in the Washington Independent last month. These are some of the same groups that strongly supported Obama’s pledge to close [...]


Two for One: Guantanamo Won’t Close, But Illinois Supermax Will Open « Solitary Watch
Pingback posted July 6, 2010 @ 7:59 pm

[...] detainees could be held indefinitely without trial, or be subject to military tribunals. This has prompted some critics to label Thomson “Gitmo North,”  and to question whether there is any advantage to [...]


louis vuitton handbags
Comment posted July 28, 2010 @ 6:17 am

Second terrorists are criminals that commit crimes against humanity. We are trapped into killing our youth and going broke financially because we let the politicians define our opposition to terror as a “War on…”


louis vuitton handbags
Comment posted July 28, 2010 @ 6:18 am

Second terrorists are criminals that commit crimes against humanity. We are trapped into killing our youth and going broke financially because we let the politicians define our opposition to terror as a “War on…”


louis vuitton
Comment posted August 4, 2010 @ 2:14 pm

I for one think an uninhabited island on the Aleutian chain would server a better purpose than Cuba and fix the PR problem Cuba has all together. No more year round 80 degree temps.


Rick Fisk
Comment posted September 10, 2010 @ 4:18 pm

Close Guantanamo, replace it with nothing and let all of the obviously innocent captives there go. If they had even a little bit of evidence against them, they would have already tried them. They have NOTHING.


379931
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

379931 beers on the wall. sck was here


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.