The Senate was quite right in denying President Obama $80M to close the Guantanamo detention facility. The President did not present a plan. The Congress and the country are about up to HERE with appropriating funds for projects without plans. What’s the plan for those currently held at Gitmo?
Gitmo detainees can be divided among 3 categories:
Category 1- Those for which there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution.
Category 2- Those for which there is not sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution yet are deemed too dangerous to be released.
Category 3- Those who are not threats to US security and have not committed prosecutable offenses.
Detainees in the last category should be released and returned to their home countries. A bit of startup money as partial compensation for their unjust imprisonment by the US would be the right thing to do. And don’t anyone get all indignant here. Were you or a loved one held with no charges in a foreign prison for a period of years I think you’d be entitled to compensation for the inconvenience beyond a “sorry” and airfare home.
Category 1 detainees present two issues.
1. Upon conviction, their imprisonment in the United States raises several sub-issues such as the ability of our prisons to hold them without escaping; which facilities and states will be holding them; those sentenced to relatively short sentences being released into the American populace. From what I have seen on the news, there isn’t much doubt that federal max security prisons are physically and technologically capable of holding dangerous prisoners without any chance of escape. The second part of this issue is the “not in my backyard” argument raised by locating toxic waste dumps and other not very pleasant and potentially dangerous facilities in the states. I’m thinking that with economic incentives there will be states eager enough to cash in on convicted high-max terrorists. The final sub-issue of a short prison sentence is more troubling, following along the same lines as the discussion below in number 2.
2. Far more troubling is such a detainee being acquitted at trial. Once subject to federal jurisdiction will the accused be entitled to the same rights enjoyed by other federal defendants? Procedural mistakes such as coerced confessions and warrantless searches may well have been SOP when held at Gitmo. What consideration should be given to SOP vs. constitutional rights? Should a defense attorney be able to get his detainee client acquitted due to a procedural error violating his constitutional rights thus compelling an acquittal? An otherwise guilty terrorist being acquitted due to a technicality will not play well and may present a security threat. Must a new set of rules be drafted to avoid such acquittals?
Acquittals would also be on the merits of the case, i.e., the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a jury or judge. Are we to lower the standard of proof in federal criminal cases for detainees? I doubt that will fly as setting nasty precedent. So under the existing rules of law in federal courts, an accused terrorist putting a reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge or one juror is now free to go. What then?
Ah – but the fears evoked by these scenarios are of mass murder, fueled by images of 9/11 where a small group of terrorists killed thousands. Is the average acquitted terrorist significantly worse than the average acquitted murderer or rapist also released into American society? Someone will have to come up with a best guess answer before any Gitmo detainees are processed through the federal system with the possibility of acquittal and release.
Category 2 detainees, however, are the most problematic for the American justice system, its values, the Constitution and the left wing. Under the American justice system, these detainees could not be held indefinitely without cause to believe that they committed crimes punishable under American law. A law student could have these folks out of custody in a second. On the other end of the scale are the FBI and spy agencies with accurate intelligence indicating that these people are clear and present dangers to the security of the United States. Let’s pretend for a second that Osama Bin-Laden was captured 20 years ago – before he had directed major terrorist attacks. No criminal acts or evidence, but our intelligence agencies know he’s huge trouble for the country’s security. What do you do with him?
The only historical precedent for detaining persons based on suspicion of potential harm to the United States occurred during World War II. The imprisonment of more than 100,000 Japanese nationals and American citizens of Japanese descent in detention camps, upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, was a tragic, obscene chapter in the history of American justice.
President Obama intimated if not proposed that a new set of rules is needed to deal with such detainees – a new code of justice of some sort. The Uniform Military Code of Justice is patterned on federal rules, but differs in ways suited to trying members of our military. There are military tribunals with their sets of rules. Each offers progressively less protection of the rights of the accused. President Obama is proposing yet another set of rules to allow the federal government to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely, necessarily tossing out the fundamental right to bring a writ of habeas corpus.
Aside from Bush-Cheney’s periodic de facto suspensions of the writ, habeas corpus (literally “produce the body” the right to challenge one’s detainment) was last suspended by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
Indefinite detainment based on suspicion of potential danger to the United States serves Taliban and Al Qaeda recruiters almost as well as torture.
Is Civil War a working standard precedent for suspending habeas corpus? If so, is the security of the United States threatened by these detainees to the level of the modern day equivalent of the Civil War? I’d like to hear that from our top intelligence officials as well as President Obama himself. If not, just what is the standard these days for abrogating such a fundamental right? What sort of code, Mr. President? What sort of code geared for detainees held indefinitely would pass constitutional muster?
Maybe we should just accept Italy’s President Silvio Berlusconi’s gracious invitation to take our Gitmo detainees to Italy and be done with it.
The first Mother’s Day after Mom died in August 2001 was bittersweet. Good thoughts about her mingled with resentment that my mother was dead while others were celebrating with theirs.
It’s been seven Mother’s Days since the first one. Now I envy those lucky enough to still have their mothers and cherish the memories of mine.
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter’s renunciation of the Republican Party to join the Senate Democratic Caucus teaches us two interlocking lessons about the state of politics in the United States 100 days into Barack Obama’s presidency.
Arlen Specter and Barack Obama are consummate politicians. Each had something the other wanted. With that established it was a done deal. Specter switched parties, joining the Senate Democratic Caucus. While not a rubber stamp for Obama’s policies (his first vote was a “no” on the Obama budget), he and the administration have common legislative goals, such as healthcare. Specter provides the filibuster-proof 60 vote majority to squelch the GOP Claque of No. Obama along with Pennsylvania’s Democratic Governor Ed Rendell have cleared the field for the Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial primary, leaving Arlen Specter without serious challenges to capture the Democratic senate nomination. This quid pro quo by the Democratic Party saved Arlen Specter from a certain beating in the state’s Republican primary.
As observed by the talking heads, Arlen Specter is out for Arlen Specter. The only option for him to retain a seat in the Senate was to make a deal with the Democrats. The second lesson is the answer to “why?”. Arlen Specter has been a solid moderate Republican with an inimitable independent streak. Specter refused to join the Claque That Says No and provided a crucial Republican vote to pass the president’s stimulus bill. It is the Claque That Says No in both houses of Congress that speaks to the nature of today’s Republican Party, a national party that has shrunk at a rate rarely paralleled in American political history. GOP spokesmen blather about expanding the Republican “tent” to compete with the rainbow base enjoyed by the Democrats. Instead, the Republican Party has become a tightly knit group of bitter right wing sore losers with no fresh ideas, leaders or inclination to work with the administration to fix the country’s economy. It flexes its pathetic political muscles through its Claque That Says No. It resembles more a faction of the Grand Old Party than the Party itself. When Rush Limbaugh is held out as a Party spokesman/leader, the Party of Abraham Lincoln needs not just a makeover, but full-fledged renovations.
Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican, could not withstand the bitter right wing’s onslaught he saw coming in his own state’s Republican primary. Specter's crossing of the aisle was about mutually beneficial political deals compelled by the locked down extremism of the Republican Party 100 days into the Barack Obama’s presidency.
May 5, 2009 update: In a voice vote, the Senate overrode Majority Leader Harry Reid and stripped Arlen Specter of his seniority, thus relegating him to the position of the most junior Democratic senator.
May 31, 2009 update: Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell strongly discourages Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) from entering the 2010 primary race against Arlen Specter: there is time for Sestak to run in the future, and, Specter will wallop the GOP candidate in 2010.
The situation for gay Iraqis has never been more dire: With reports of torture, "anal gluing," and murder coming out of the Middle East, is the U.S. surge to blame for this sudden explosion of antigay violence?
COMMENTARY: “I am gay and I am Iraqi, please help me.”
A contact of mine told me he came across this comment in an e-mail. The only thing more extraordinary than the message was the location. He was sitting in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad when he read it.
My contact said he was reaching out to me because things were “heating up” for gay men in Iraq. Over the years, he said he'd received several e-mails from gay Iraqis that came through the U.S. embassy’s website -- they are a “single source of frustration, because I feel completely helpless and heartbroken reading stories about an Iraqi that is sending an e-mail probably just a few miles from where I am sitting in the embassy, and telling me that there is a militia coming just down the block and they have a list.”
I traveled to Baghdad in the summer of 2007, during the height of the U.S. surge, to get a better handle on the situation for gays in Iraq. During my visit I met with a few gay Americans who worked at the embassy, all of whom spoke off-the-record when giving me quotes and providing information.
In recent months, things have certainly been "heating up" -- articles from The New York Times, the BBC, and the Los Angeles Times, as well as many other mainstream and gay publications, point to the horrors of what is happening in Iraq. Each article seems more harrowing than the last, attempting to make sense of something that's hard to fathom for the readers who digest these articles from the comfort and safety of an America where "dont ask, don't tell" and same-sex marriage make up the bulk of news coverage.
Some outlets -- particularly in the gay press -- point to reports by Iraqi LGBT, a London-based activist group reporting that gay men in Iraq are on death row and that they've received a letter from a gay Iraqi pleading for help, all of which has been next to impossible to verify. Others point to the reassertion of power by militias, particularly in SadrCity, a Shia slum within Baghdad where the Mahdi Army has for years engaged in a reign of terror against locals and the U.S. military.
The most disturbing report comes from the Arab-language news source Alarabiya, describing the torture and killing of at least seven gay men who have had their anuses closed using a special glue, with Iraqi officers having forced them to take a medicine inducing diarrhea and death. While the English-language media has conflicting reports on what is happening in Iraq, this report, created by those who speak the language and have the best resources to interview local political and religious officials, gives perhaps the best indication of how terrible the situation has become for LGBT Iraqis.
In the course of my work, I often come across horrific stories like these. I am a journalist, not an activist, so the priority is to cover them -- still, people often ask what they can do. The answer is to put the pressure on Washington -- to show our leaders this is a serious topic -- one that needs their attention now.
As a child, I grew up in a neighborhood where many of my friends were the grandchildren of Holocaust survivors. Because of the direct connection to this historical event, it always baffled me when we would learn in school of American indifference to the 1930s buildup to that era. Certainly, reading about overseas suffering can seem an abstraction, whether 70 years ago or today. Yet, whether today or then, how many people could have been saved by writing letters, contacting politicians, or by directly sending money to organizations which aid refugees?
Though what is going on in Iraq with gay persecution is not at the same level of the Holocaust, the major difference is that the reign of terror is the direct result of the U.S. invasion, which completely changed the balance of power, unleashing the situation that exists today. In addition to the impact on the LGBT community, the refugee situation in Iraq impacts literally millions of people who have had to flee their homes since 2003.
My visit in 2007 lasted a month, with interviews in both the safer Kurdish region as well as Baghdad. Even with a direct visit trying to look at facts on the ground, it was hard to parse what exactly was going on. Iraq is a place wracked by violence, where even gathering information can be deadly. Killings of gay men are often random -- seen as a side effect of living in Baghdad. Signs someone is gay -- long hair and stylish clothes -- are often the signs one is Westernized, an excuse for murder by those bent on overthrowing the occupation. It is also apparent that men who are stereotypically gay are targets for abduction and murder, even at military checkpoints our own government has established throughout the city.
Scott Long [...], who heads the LGBT division of Human Rights Watch, is currently in Iraq aiding gay men seeking refuge. He told me via e-mail that “I spoke today to a gay man who escaped Baghdad after multiple attempts by armed men to abduct him off the street. He was almost speechless with terror.”
Long added, “There’s obviously an enormous moral burden upon the U.S. for creating a climate in which violence against all kinds of vulnerable groups could metastasize with impunity. That doesn't detract from the responsibility of the government of an independent Iraq to institute rule of law and protect all its own population.”
As Americans looking into this issue from the relative safety of our own lives, we must ask what responsibility the United States bears and what can be done to put pressure on the Iraqi government. Baghdad under Saddam was a cosmopolitan city with a relative tolerance toward gays as part of the fabric of society. Saddam even kept a network of gay spies to sleep with gay foreign diplomats and extract secrets, perhaps the strongest acknowledgement of gay culture before the occupation.
But the invasion changed all of that, wiping out the cosmopolitan society, with gay culture, music, art, women in the workforce, and other factors under attack as militias and religious leaders asserted power in the chaos.
Openly gay U.S. congressman Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat, visited Iraq in early April and found in his discussions by phone with gay Iraqi men that “many fondly reminisced about life under Saddam.”
He said most gay people are closeted, as they are in places like Jordan and Syria, where many gay Iraqis, among other refugees, have fled to escape violence and, in many cases, await asylum. These countries do not have perfect LGBT rights records, Polis commented, but “at the very least, [gay citizens] don’t live in constant fear for their lives.”
Polis’s findings mirror the comments made by the gay men I met in Iraq. It is not hard to argue that the locus of responsibility for the deaths of gay men in Iraq lies squarely with the U.S. decision to invade the country. The occupation changed the political structure of the country, creating a power vacuum that led to the rise of a militant insurgency, using Islamic fundamentalism as a cover for its horrific deeds.
No matter one’s opinion of the war, the question is what to do now. According to Polis, there are “some friendly elements in the Iraqi government,” but the “problem is the breakdown of the chain of command and the failure of duty to protect their lesbian, gay, and transgendered citizens.” His visit was a way “to make sure our government is aware of the issue and raise the issue with our counterparts in Iraq.”
The recent killings reflect a dilemma in U.S. policy. The situation in Iraq is overall significantly safer than it was during my 2007 visit. By suppressing the militant and religious elements, the surge created a more vibrant Baghdad, more akin to the cosmopolitan society that once existed. Shops have reopened, artists are displaying in galleries again, women are returning to work, and young couples have begun to hold hands again in parks that dot the city. But the safety induced by the surge has also allowed for a more visible presence of Baghdad’s gay community, and with this has come the resurgence of the once-discredited militant groups, particularly the Mahdi Army based out of SadrCity.
According to my contact at the embassy, “our local staff, some of whom live in Sadr City, have told us that word on the streets is that this is the work of JAM,” referring to the Mahdi Army. He emphasized these are “not tribal and not familial disputes.” My contact explained that since the surge, the security situation has improved and militant groups have been suppressed, leading to the Mahdi Army saying they are not “there protecting the virtues of the community; this is why guys are coming out now -- they’re starting to act more Western, they’re acting more effeminate.”
"The impression is that these incidents are a way for these JAM elements to reassert their presence in a way that is culturally acceptable.” As the surge has discredited them, “they have to take issues overall that make them look legitimate, and the culture being what it is in this part of the world, Iraq in this case, in their minds, this is a legitimate cause, rooting out homosexuality.”
Under the Obama administration, a similar surge will be conducted in Afghanistan, diverting resources from one occupied country to another. Ultimately, the United States will leave Iraq. While a new government exists within the country, how long it will hold up without the U.S. presence remains to be seen. Perhaps we can look at gays in Iraq as canaries in a coal mine, an indication of what is to come in a future Iraq. The absence of American and other international forces may lead again to the deadly chaos that existed just after the invasion.
The question now for gay Americans is, “What can we do?” Myriad organizations are focused on the issue, from Iraqi LGBT to Human Rights Watch to the San Francisco–based Organization for Refuge, Asylum, and Migration, whose executive director Neil Grungras said, “Even if the West is helpless to stop the antigay terror in Iraq, the U.S. and other enlightened nations can save the lives of thousands of gays who will otherwise be returned to certain death. In 2008 the U.S. accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees. In 2009 it intends to take in 17,000. We are urging the U.S. and other traditional resettlement countries to set aside sufficient slots to save these vulnerable refugees' lives.”
My contact in Baghdad told me that “arguments have been made for expanding the refugee program, to allow for processing of minority groups such as LGBT Iraqis at the American embassy in Baghdad. But there are other minority groups -- Christians, women, Sunnis who live in and are surrounded by Shiite communities, Shiites surrounded by Sunnis -- that face just as great a threat and danger.”
He added, “Requests for help that come our way do not go unnoticed or unheard. But making public any effort to assist gay Iraqis is precarious because we are operating in what remains -- relative to the rest of the world -- a very conservative society. It is suspected that the SadrCity murders carried out earlier this month were by militias and conservative elements within Iraqi society, which tend to be anti-American to begin with. If the U.S. government is publicly seen by these groups as putting pressure on the government of Iraq, that will, quite possibly, make things worse for gay Iraqis.”
It is clear though that in another occupied country, Afghanistan, outside international pressure can change things. Afghanistan recently approved what has come to be called the "marriage rape law," interpreted to mean that men can force their wives to have sex with them and deny them the right to leave the home without permission. It seemed something that the Taliban would pass, not an elected U.S.–backed government. An international uproar ensued, along with the implicit threat that billions of dollars in aid would be denied Afghanistan if the law were not reexamined.
Polis suggests using those “friendly elements in the Iraqi government” to work on gay issues. The importance of this ultimately will be similar to what was experienced in Afghanistan on women’s issues, and he said, “The eyes of the international human rights community will judge Iraq by how they treat those who face discrimination in their society.”
My contact at the embassy told me to let readers of The Advocate know that “if there is any piece of advice I can give our community and those who care about the plight of gay Iraqis, it is this: Put pressure on Washington to do more, put pressure on your government. The only way our leaders ever know something is serious is when we stand up and show just how serious we are about it.” He added, “If these killings in what remains a war zone don't show the world that people do not choose at their leisure to be persecuted, I don't know what will.”
