The Guantánamo I Know - New York Times

The Guantánamo I Know - New York Times

LINDSEY GRAHAM, a Republican senator from South Carolina, is right: “The image of Guantánamo Bay and the reality of Guantánamo Bay are completely different.” It is disappointing that so many embrace a contrived image. Reality for Guantánamo Bay is the daily professionalism of its staff, the humanity of its detention centers and the fair and transparent nature of the military commissions charged with trying war criminals. It is a reality that has been all but ignored or forgotten.

Well, I do appreciate that the NY Times printed this op-ed.  It's always important to hear the other side . . . if you don't know what they have to say, how do you know they're not right?  Now that I've read this article I can rest assured that they're still wrong.

I appreciate the fact that inmates are getting better treatment now, treatment that at least partially adheres to the Geneva Convention.  Although the author of this op-ed never even tried to claim that treatment at Guantanamo complies 100% with the Geneva Convention, preferring instead to hand out a list of juicy tidbits to assuage consciences.  Juicy tidbits do not a complete picture make.

Problem #1: What about torture?  There have been many allegations of torture at Guantanamo.  This op-ed doesn't even touch on that.  In the law, if someone makes an accusation, one that you should deny, and you keep silent, your silence is damning.  Here too, the silence in the face of the torture accusations is damning.

Problem #2: Lack of American jurisdiction.  The very reason the prison is located in Cuban territory is because the administration didn't want it on American soil.  Why?  Because they felt they had a legal argument to deny American jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court attempted to close that loophole in US v. Hamdi, but the Republican Congress responded by opening the loophole again (yes, they can do that).  We are democracy.  We are supposed to be the shining beacon of light.  A shining beacon of light doesn't do things in the dark.

Problem #3: It's entirely outside the judicial branch.  Are these people really guilty?  Do we really have valid evidence against them?  If so, why all the shadiness?  A growing number of people are calling for these enemy combatants to be tried in American federal court.  We have a well-established judicial system that is well prepared to handle these people.  So why do we have to spend millions of dollars (billions?) reinventing the wheel on a corner of an island outside American jurisdiction?  I'll tell you the reason: for the Bush administration, punishment is more important than justice.  Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of those clowns know that putting the process in the federal civilian court would increase the legitimacy of the procedures and give a great example to the rest of the world.  They also know that there's a chance that some of these people may end up not being convicted because the evidence against them is not strong enough, or because they're simply not guilty.  That's not what the administration wants.  They're happy to give up honesty, democratic process, and world legitimacy in order to punish these fuckers.  Torture?  Violation of international law?  Fine.  We just want to git 'em.

Guantanamo isn't the solution, Guantanamo is the problem.  Just like so many other facets of Bush's "War on Terr," Guantanamo hurts America at home and it hurts American interests abroad.  Like the stain on Lady Macbeth's hands, it's going to take a long time to wash away the harm done by Guantanamo.