Rights of detainees

  • June 2, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Ariel Lavinbuk, an attorney at Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP and a Principal of the Truman National Security Project

    In recent weeks, President Obama's approach to national security - particularly on issues related to terrorism - has drawn considerable criticism from his base. What began as disappointment over the decision to withhold images of past detainee abuse quickly turned to disillusionment over the continuing use of military commissions. Such concerns now pale in comparison to the almost universal outrage directed at plans to "preventatively detain" certain individuals for a potentially endless period of time. Taken together, these policies have been seen as a betrayal by the left, which has taken to wondering aloud whether President Obama is any different than his predecessor.

    There is merit to some of the concerns that have been expressed, but there is also considerable danger in overlooking what President Obama has accomplished in a very short time, and in underestimating the challenges facing our country. These reactions distract from the considerable work that remains to be done in reforming our nation's response to terrorism.

    In his first four months in office, President Obama has banned all interrogation techniques not listed in the Army Field Manual and guaranteed Red Cross access to all detainees still being held. At the same time, he has loosened Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) standards, released more Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos and ordered a review of government classification procedures. These are significant accomplishments. We forget how recently it was that we did not even know who our government was detaining, let alone what it was doing to them. Even better, these actions have inspired renewed confidence in the idea that adhering to our values is a strategic asset, not a liability; indeed, by a 55-to-37 margin, the American public now believes that President Obama's policies have made the nation safer than it was under President Bush.

  • May 30, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Hamid M. Khan, a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project, an associate with McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP and an Adjunct Professor at the University of Colorado Law School
    Over the past few weeks, Americans have been cloistered into a confessional about this nation's dealings in the aftermath of 9/11. We have been bombarded by fresh controversies over the CIA's detention and interrogation policies under the Bush Administration, assertions by former Vice President Dick Cheney that the harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects helped save thousands of American lives, and Speaker Pelosi's denials she was informed about the CIA's use of waterboarding and accusations the agency mislead Congress not to mention the impasse surrounding where and how to house those remaining detainees being housed at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The collective exasperation to the present state of affairs can largely be attributed to the overarching issue facing us as a nation: How did we get into this situation in the first place?

    We have begun to realize the current state of affairs occurred partly because, for years after 9/11, many of our national institutions did not do their jobs, many did little to voice their opposition and the media were often lap dogs rather than watchdogs. And while the Obama Administration had hoped the recent release of the so-called torture memos would shed some light on some of our darker practices; the ensuing tumult, from both sides of the aisle, has only made things more difficult. For many, the controversies alone should offer the case for an independent inquiry: what better way to sweep aside the politics and get to the facts than establishing a Truth Commission?

  • May 18, 2009

    Next week's recess is prompting a flurry of action on the Hill today. One issue not anticipated to go anywhere soon, though, is the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, which has been stalled by legislators leary of allocating funds that would pay for relocation of detainees.

    IN the HOUSE

    In other detainee news, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) added fuel to the torture accountability debate by renewing her call for Truth Commissions to invesitgate the issue. While questions linger about whether there is sufficient political traction for Truth Commissions, Pelosi's strong stance on the issue may ease the Speaker's burden to explain what she knew and when as torture policies were being formulated and implemented by the Bush administration.

    The House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to move forward on climate change bill. But, if it happens, it will be over challenges from those opposed to addressing the challenge.

    And anyone suffering from campaign withdrawal can enjoy The Fix's first look at vulnerable House seats in the 2010 elections.

    IN the SENATE

  • May 15, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Michael Foote, a prosecutor in Colorado and a Principal of the Truman National Security Project

    When the United States government uses the rule of law, it wins.

    The Department of Justice faced no shortage of criticism when prosecuting seven Miami-area residents who pledged allegiance to al Qaeda and plotted to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and FBI buildings around the country. Critics claimed it cost too much, or the defendants were not really serious about committing terrorist acts. Some even thought the accused were merely amateurs not worthy of government attention. After three trials and two defendant acquittals, even the critics have to acknowledge that five of the plotters are now convicted of providing support to a terrorist group.

    For those of us who advocate the use of criminal prosecutions against terrorists, the Liberty Six convictions should be celebrated, not derided. The government used a civilian court to convict five individuals who wanted to join al Qaeda. It was the latest in a long line of successful preventive prosecutions against those who plot harm against the United States.

  • May 15, 2009

    Prof. Geoffrey Stone, member of the ACS Board of Directors, is expressing disappointment with President Obama's decision not to release further photos of detainee abuse that occurred under President Bush.

    Mr. Obama might argue that all that is at issue here are mere pictures. The American people already know (sort of) about the abuses themselves. The value of these images to robust public debate, he might argue, is therefore relatively slight. Of course, the same can be said about the harm from release of the photos.

    But the more important point is that visual images matter a lot in public discourse. Think, for example, about the response of the American people to such events as the Holocaust, the Mai Lai massacre, the use of fire hoses and riot police against peaceful civil rights demonstrators in the American South, and the photographs of Abu Ghraib. Without the reinforcing impact of those images, those events would never have had the effect they did on the American public. Here is another misleading adage: "What you don't know can't hurt you."

    President Obama is wrong on this issue, and he is wrong in a big way.