Guantanamo Bay

This morning, on NPR’s morning edition, I heard an interview with Bradford Berenson, attorney and former member of the Office of White House Counsel (2001-2002). The topic was “Why Guantanamo Bay Should Remain Open.” (If you want to listen to it, I know NH Public Radio (www.nhpr.org) has it archived.)

In the course of this almost 8-minute interview, a number of statements were made which simply do not mesh with my understanding of reality, and so now I need to go spend some time trying to see who’s telling the truth.

The first quote which really got to me was:

“Abuses…are not really what are stimulating the criticism. Critics of Guantanamo Bay and the Critics of the Administration’s detainee policy don’t like the fact that we are holding people as enemy combatants… and that we are keeping them outside of the criminal justice system”

It annoyed me that he so quickly dismissed the abuses, as though that wasn’t what REALLY bothered people. He made several statements dismissing the abuses which struck me as cold. He said that this sort of abuse was an ugly side of war, but probably went on in just about every armed conflict that the United States had ever taken part in, as though that somehow made it OK. For me, I don't see them as separate. I see the continued holding without trial as just one more abuse.

The interviewer then read him a portion of an FBI memo recently made public due to the efforts of the ACLU:

“On a couple of occasions I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position to the floor with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for eighteen to twenty four hours or more”

His answer was:

“Nobody would either A) deny that there have been abuses in the interrogation process or b) condone those abuses. The Administration has been very forthcoming in publicizing the instances in which there have been problems and in trying to punish those responsible.”

Really? No one would deny it? No one would deny that there were any reports of desecrations of the Koran, only to have an official report surface days later indicating that abuses of the Koran had in fact been reported and investigated? No one would condone abuses of prisoners, even though everything we hear from everyone involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal was that the treatment of prisoners was directed from the top?

And what definition of “forthcoming” is he using? Certainly when these abuses COME to light, the Administration very quickly tries to find a scapegoat or two to sacrifice on the altar of lies, but I haven’t seen them rushing to release the information. In fact, at every turn, I’ve seen them deny deny deny, only to later be forced to admit that it went on, when evidence becomes overwhelming, and then only after they’ve figured out how to spin it so as to claim it was not their doing.


At one point, he was asked:

“Are you confident that every person at Guantanamo or even most of the people at Guantanamo are in fact terrorists?”

He answered:

“I can not be confident that every single person at Guantanamo is a terrorist. I CAN be confident that the vast majority of those down there are terrorists or are in some way or another associated with al Qaeda or the Taliban. And indeed all but the most skewed and partisan critics will acknowledge that whatever the error rate is in our capture and detention of suspected terrorists, and surely there is one, it can’t be terribly high.”

Really? First off, wonderful how he dismisses anyone who disagrees with him as skewed and partisan. What of the reports that five current detainees, who share a name, are all being held because of a document somewhere that uses that name? Even assuming one of the men in question is the detainee they’re looking for, four of them are not. In that instance, an error rate of 80%!

But really, this evades the whole issue, because if we can prove we’ve got the right people, we should try them. Give them the fair trial that our country is based upon. I’ve said it before, but when our Declaration of Independence talks about “all men” and their “inalienable rights”, it doesn’t say “all men who are citizens of this country”. It couldn’t, there was no country at the time they wrote it. The idea that we can hold what is essentially political prisoners, held without charge or trial is indefensible, and to try is basically to argue that the Soviet practice of holding political prisoners in just this fashion was not nearly as evil as we said it was when we used it to denounce the old Soviet Union.

Another quote:

“…the gathering of intelligence is not the only purpose of detaining these folks, the primary, preeminent purpose [of holding the prisoners in Guantanamo] is to prevent them from returning to the fight against the United States”

Again, this skirts the issue. If we can prove that they are in fact active terrorists or aiding terrorists, after years we’ve had plenty of time to prove it, and we should do so. Failing to do that, we’re just holding people on suspicion, without due process or any of the basic human rights which are core to our country. And by doing so, we’re besmirching the value of our nation.

One more quote:

“I suspect if Guantanamo were closed down and all of its operations were moved elsewhere, inevitably that would mean moving them much farther away from the United States, and then there would be a chorus of criticism that the government is making it difficult for people to visit the facility.”

Why does he suspect this? Is there a reason why they could not be held on U.S. soil? Would that perhaps change their legal status? I’m really curious why moving them away from Guantanamo Bay would have to mean moving them AWAY from the U.S. Also, it’s true, the closing of Guantanamo is not the goal. The fair treatment of our prisoners is the goal, if not for their sake then for our own. Selling out our principles is a really slippery slope, and one it pains me to see our administration traveling further and further down.

The final quote really had little to do with anything, except that every time I re-listen to the interview, I think he’s going somewhere else with it, and since it surprises me every time, I’ll give you his quote, and the quote I keep thinking he’s going to make, which would (in my opinion) be a much more accurate statement of the facts. First his:

“I think the Administration is trying to do what it can to ensure that what happens at Guantanamo is lawful and appropriate and that the watchdogs we have in society to ensure that are given access so that they can make sure that’s happening.”

And mine:

“I think the Administration is trying to do what it can to ensure that what happens in Guantanamo STAYS in Guantanamo.”


Copyright © (except for quotes) June 10, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net