Skip to content Skip to footer

Guantanamo: Ten Years Too Many

Guards patrol a cellblock at Camp 6, the maximum-security area of Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in October 2007. (Photo: Todd Heisler / The New York Times) “Today, it is not merely justice itself, but the idea of justice that is under attack.” The words are those of Arundhati Roy, the Indian author and activist, but they could also be those of anyone trying to draw up a balance sheet of the first decade of Gitmo, as the US's concentration camp at Guantánamo Bay has come to be known.

“Today, it is not merely justice itself, but the idea of justice that is under attack.” The words are those of Arundhati Roy, the Indian author and activist, but they could also be those of anyone trying to draw up a balance sheet of the first decade of Gitmo, as the US's concentration camp at Guantánamo Bay has come to be known.

Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) was the first legal organization to perceive the danger which the legal culture of Gitmo posed to the idea of justice and to take on cases on behalf of detainees. Gradually, other human rights organizations and, to their credit, many members of the legal establishment, joined a collective attempt to stem the tide of injustice, so that at one time CCR found itself coordinating the legal work of more than 500 pro bono “Gitmo lawyers.”

CCR's two most important victories came in two Supreme Court cases, Rasul (2004) and Boumedienne (2008). The former did away with two pernicious fictions: that, since Gitmo was located on Cuban territory, US law did not apply, and that “enemy combatants” were not entitled to habeas corpus. Congress attempted to undo Rasul by legislation, but the Supreme Court upheld it in Boumedienne, stating, “To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is.'”

Subsequent developments have given these victories a pyrrhic character. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where all of the Gitmo habeas cases have been brought, has refused to order the release of detainees, even those who have won their cases in the lower courts. And there are other ways in which the idea of justice has suffered in the first Gitmo decade.

Also See:
Ten Years of Guantanamo: What Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld Knew

An Exclusive Interview With Former Guantanamo Detainee David Hicks

Estimates of detainees who were never terrorists range from 70 to 90 percent. Not one of the more than 700 who enjoyed the hospitality of Gitmo has been able to collect compensation for being held, often in solitary confinement, and some for as long as ten years, before being released without ever being charged.

About 600 detainees have been released and sent to their home countries or other countries willing to accept them, partly as a result of CCR attorneys scouring the world for such countries. But there remains a hard core of several dozen, who have either been declared not to be security risk, but have no place to go, or are being called security risks, who cannot be tried for one or another reason and are therefore facing indefinite detention. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 includes a provision allowing indefinite detention without trial for non-US citizens.

Another troubling development is Congress' 2009 mandate that relegates Gitmo detainees to a new, untested system of military commissions despite the fact that, since 9/11, 150 terrorism defendants have been successfully convicted in civilian courts.

Vice President Cheney's dictum that, in times of emergency, governments may have to go to “the dark side” hangs over this recent history. Arundhati Roy would say that once you admit that justice can have a dark side, you might as well give up on the idea of justice.

Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn

Dear Truthout Community,

If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.

We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.

Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.

There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.

Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?

It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.

We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.

We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.

Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.

We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.

With love, rage, and solidarity,

Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy