Closing Guantanamo Isn’t Enough

There is a trend with this administration wanting to get things done rapidly. We always complain about how slow the government takes to get things done. Now that the complete opposite is happening here, we wonder if it is more hasty rather than efficient. After all, this administration has already spent (or is planning to spend) more than 1 trillion dollars within 2 months. I agree with Jun that the economy is more important right now, not just for Americans, but because what happens to the American economy has a huge influence on what happens elsewhere and vice versa. But I digress.

I do agree with you that simply shutting down Guantanamo is not enough. The problem is justice is painfully slow. This opposes Obama's plans for swift action and symbolic achievements. Guantanamo needed to be closed down. But real change cannot happen with superficial make-overs.

You say we need to regain and strengthen our status as a role model for human rights. But are we really role models? Maybe in America, to ourselves, we are. But elsewhere? History has shown how America repeatedly gets involved in other country's disputes under the banner of human rights and then pull out quickly, leaving the country in shambles. Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan (in the past and now), South America, Africa, Haiti, the list goes on. Is it any wonder so many foreigners are suspicious of us when we so arrogantly claim we are models of human rights? Why should anyone else listen take us seriously when we are seemingly more interested in self-promotion?

It will take a lot more than prosecuting criminals and shutting down Guantanamo to regain confidence of other nations. America has its hands bloody from years of history. Ignoring or dismissing past wrongs won't help that situation as you've said.

Anyway, I thought this was great post!

@Jun, I wrote such a long response to your comment, and Brazen Careerist died in that exact moment. Argh. But anyway, thanks for your comment. Glad to hear that people are interested in this. I will try to retype my response.

First of all, the UN Convention on Torture defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..." in order to get information. It seems like waterboarding is torture under these guidelines, and I think Department of Justice officials should have thought twice about what they were doing. It is true that they are in a high pressure environment and that this was authorized by the DoJ, but that does not exempt these officials from thinking deeply about what they were doing. I'm not saying it wasn't easy, but they should have inquired more deeply about what they were asked to do if it was unclear.

Moreover, I don't think that fighting terrorism was really accomplished by Guantanamo and by torture. Many of the prisoners were picked up randomly and detained for 6 years without being even told why they were there and what the charges against them were. And under international legal standards, torture is unacceptable even to gain information and "protect" your country. The legal system is based on the idea of fairness and equality, and part of this means giving every prisoner equal rights and a fair trial. They could have found out the info by conducting proper investigations, rather than by detaining random people who may or may not have been connected to terrorism. And many of them weren't. I don't see how waterboarding helps in a situation when most of these detainees weren't even terrorists. Thus I don't agree with you that these measures were necessary to protect our country. There are many more effective and better methods we could have used to do that.

Finally, I don't think you have to place the economy above this. This is an issue that Obama can sign off on and delegate to relevant politicians, lawyers, and experts who can take charge of the Commission. I don't think it has to detract from the economic crisis at all - of course that will continue to be a very important issue. But it's not like these issues are competing. I think both are important. But more importantly, we can't diminish the importance of investigating what had happened. A year ago you might have thought national security was a vital issue. Now it's not, but it doesn't mean this can't happen again. We can't just remove this from the agenda because it's not important at this moment...it is important for the future.

@Valerie - thanks, great points! I especially agree with you that our human rights record over the years has been weak, if that. We are not really human rights role models. I said "role model" because our practices with Guantanamo Bay has helped other regimes who torture and suspend rule of law legitimize their regimes. So we've been in some sense negative role models! Regimes have thought that if the U.S. is torturing prisoners and illegally detaining them, then they can too. But closing Guantanamo will make us more positive role models by no longer legitimizing such practices. Moreover, if we are going to go to other countries like China and ask them to improve their human rights, it will help to show that we ourselves are working on our human rights records. It will give us more legitimacy in that.

@Olivia - This is true, and there are many problems. But I see no reason to be optimistic about the future and about the way the U.S. approaches this. I think we have a great new President, and I think we can be optimistic that something good will and should eventually happen. True, those at the higher level may not be prosecuted. But like I said - why should they be exempt because of their political powers? What they did was wrong. Like I said, people are arrested for years because of drug possession....it's only fair that officials participating in torture get some justice as well.

Fantastic post Akhila, for all the reasons that Jun mentioned in his initial comment. This is why I "became your fan" :P

I'd like to add something constructive but it's very difficult because in your comment you already pretty much said what I was thinking in response to Jun's devil's advocacy (cheers for that by the way Jun, I think it's always good to challenge).

I'd also like to add that the philosophy that investigating the past doesn't cut it when there are more important things to deal with doesn't make sense to me. If I'm not mistaken, countries are founded on upholding law & order as a means of enacting justice. If we don't investigate the past, then should we also absolve everyone of crimes committed in the past because it's not worth looking into? As Akhila mentioned in her post, if we investigate all other types of criminal activity, the people at the highest point of the pyramid must also be investigated with the same rigour. The economic crisis is very bad but nothing is more important than upholding the very foundation that our societies are built on - upholding order, justice & the rule of law.

This is a great post.

Law is not my area - but I could not agree more that Rule of Law must be strictly upheld - it is the bedrock of a free and properly functioning society. I think people often forget that. Freedom in society doesn't equal anarchy; it means upholding the right of the individual and personal protections over one's person and private belongings.

I'm very passionate about this where economics are concerned.

I also could not agree more about the point you bring up re: drug laws and prosecution. It's ridiculous, we are creating more hardened criminals than curing drug abuse or improving the conditions for people in the drug trade. I'm in favor of drug legalization - not because I personally condone or support drug use, but so the black market can function transparently, and people can be protected, no matter their personal lifestyle choices. It would reduce a lot of the problems associated with drug trade and use, including reducing the wasteful spending at the federal level.