Obama dijo a CNN que “van a haber un cierto número irreducible de casos que van a ser muy difíciles, porque sabemos que han hecho algo malo y que todavía son peligrosos, pero es difícil de montar la prueba en un tribunal tradicional en el espíritu del Artículo III, por lo que vamos a tener que lidiar con eso”. Y sí, ese es el mismo Obama que emitió una orden ejecutiva dos días después de llegar a la presidencia con la intención de “cerrar sin demora las instalaciones de detención en Guantánamo”, afirmando claramente que “los individuos actualmente detenidos en Guantánamo tienen el privilegio constitucional del recurso de hábeas corpus”.

Así funciona la democracia.

Solo fue hacia el final de su segundo mandato que el presidente fue capaz de tomar un pasito tan pequeño en cuanto a la clausura de una prisión que, incluso bajo los más estrictos estándares de realpolitik, puede considerarse como una desventaja tan fuerte como la Bastilla de la Francia prerrevolucionaria (cuyo Antiguo Régimen quizá podría haberse mantenido en pie durante un poco más de tiempo haciendo el espectáculo de la liberación de un par de reclusos de vez en cuando). Por supuesto que ni siquiera su costo astronómico, que hace ver a las prisiones regulares estadounidenses como modelos de restricción fiscal, impide que Nile Gardiner, director de la Fundación del Patrimonio del Centro Margaret Thatcher por la Libertad, la defienda sin ninguna duda.

Mientras tanto, Voice of America traslada la culpa a “los obstáculos impuestos por el Congreso de Estados Unidos”, una movida que recuerda a los llamados a “dejar que Reagan sea Reagan” para que pudiese aplicar el laissez-faire que realmente quería desde el principio.

Emma Goldman escribió en “Prisiones: el crimen social y su fracaso” que “El impulso natural del hombre primitivo de devolver el golpe, de vengarse del mal, está fuera de lugar. En cambio, el hombre civilizado, despojado de todo valor y atrevimiento, ha delegado a una maquinaria organizada el deber de reprimir los errores, en la estúpida creencia de que el Estado está justificado para hacer lo que él ya no tiene ni la madurez ni la coherencia para llevar a cabo. El ‘imperio de la ley‘ es un producto del raciocinio; no se queda en los instintos primitivos. Su misión es de una naturaleza ‘superior‘”. Un siglo más tarde, el crecimiento hipertrófico de la burocracia penitenciaria confirma esto, así como su insistencia en que “[l]a esperanza de la libertad y la oportunidad es el único incentivo para la vida, especialmente para la vida del prisionero. La sociedad, que ha pecado tanto contra él, ha de otorgarle eso por lo menos. No soy tan optimista para creer que esto ocurra, o que algún cambio real en esa dirección tenga lugar mientras las condiciones que engendran tanto al prisionero como al carcelero no sean abolidas para siempre”.

Artículo original publicado por Joel Schlosberg el 22 de diciembre de 2014.

Traducido del inglés por Alan Furth.

Obama disse à CNN que “haverá um certo número irreducível de casos muito difíceis, de indivíduos que fizeram algo errado e são muito perigosos, mas para quem é difícil coletar provas para um processo tradicional nas cortes americanas, então teremos que lidar com esse fato”. Esse é o mesmo Obama que emitiu uma ordem executiva dois dias depois de se tornar presidente para “fechar prontamente os centros de detenção em Guantánamo”, afirmando claramente que “os indíviduos presos em Guantánamos possuem o direito constitucional ao habeas corpus”.

Isso é democracia.

O presidente demorou até a segunda metade de seu segundo mandato para dar esse minúsculo passo em direção ao fechamento de uma instalação que, mesmo em termos puramente de realpolitik, é um problema da mesma dimensão da Bastilha da França pré-revolucionária (onde o Antigo Regime poderia ter resistido por mais algum tempo se tivessem libertado um ou outro prisioneiro ocasionalmente). Seus custos são tão altos que Guantánamo faz com as prisões americanas convencionais pareçam modelos de responsabilidade fiscal e faz com que até seus defensores hesitem, como Nile Gardiner, diretor do Centro pela Liberdade Margaret Thatcher da instituto conservador Heritage Foundation.

Enquanto isso, a Voice of America, o órgão de propaganda oficial do governo dos Estados Unidos, coloca a culpa do atraso nos “obstáculos impostos pelo Congresso dos EUA”, um argumento parecido com o adotado por ideológos que pediram que o congresso “deixasse Reagan ser Reagan” e implementasse o regime de laissez faire com que ele sempre sonhou.

Emma Goldman escreveu em “Prisões: falência e crime social” que o “impulso natural do homem primitivo de revidar um golpe, de vingar-se de uma ofensa, é anacrônico. Ao invés disso, o homem civilizado, despido de coragem e audácia, tem delegado a um organizado maquinário a responsabilidade de vingar-se por ele de suas ofensas, baseado na tola crença que o estado se justifica ao fazer aquilo para o qual ele não tem mais a virilidade ou consistência. A ‘majestade da lei’ é algo racional; ela não desce aos instintos primitivos. Sua missão é de natureza ‘superior'”. Um século mais tarde, o crescimento hipertrofiado da burocracia prisional dá suporte a essa observação e também à insistência de Goldman de que “a esperança
de liberdade e de oportunidade é o único incentivo para a vida, especialmente para a vida de um presidiário. A sociedade tem pecado há muito contra eles e isto é o mínimo que ela deve deixar-lhes. Eu não estou muito esperançosa que isto ocorrerá, ou que qualquer mudança real nesta direção possa acontecer até que as condições que originam a ambos, o prisioneiro e o carcereiro, sejam abolidas para sempre”.

Traduzido por Erick Vasconcelos, com citações diretas do texto de Emma Goldman, “Prisões: falência e crime social“, traduzido por Anamaria Salles.

Obama told CNN that “there’s gonna be a certain irreducible number that are gonna be really hard cases, because we know they’ve done something wrong and they are still dangerous, but it’s difficult to mount the evidence in a traditional Article III court, so we’re gonna have to wrestle with that.” And yes, this is the same Obama who issued an executive order two days after becoming president aimed “promptly to close detention facilities at Guantanamo” stating clearly that “the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.”

This is what democracy looks like.

It has taken the president until the lame-duck section of his second term to take such a baby step towards closing a facility which, even in purely realpolitik terms, is a liability on par with the Bastille of pre-revolutionary France (whose Ancien Regime could likely have hung on longer by making a show of releasing a couple of inmates now and then). Not that its cost making regular US prisons look like models of fiscal restraint gives pause to its unblinking defense by Nile Gardiner, the Heritage Foundation’s director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

Meanwhile, Voice of America shifts the blame to “obstacles imposed by the U.S. Congress,” a move reminiscent of bygone calls to “let Reagan be Reagan” and implement the laissez-faire he really wanted to all along.

Emma Goldman wrote in “Prisons: A Social Crime and Failure” that “the natural impulse of the primitive man to strike back, to avenge a wrong, is out of date. Instead, the civilized man, stripped of courage and daring, has delegated to an organized machinery the duty of avenging his wrongs, in the foolish belief that the State is justified in doing what he no longer has the manhood or consistency to do. The majesty-of-the-law is a reasoning thing; it would not stoop to primitive instincts. Its mission is of a ‘higher’ nature.” A century later, the hypertrophied growth of the prison bureaucracy bears this out, as well as her insistence that “The hope of liberty and of opportunity is the only incentive to life, especially the prisoner’s life. Society has sinned so long against him — it ought at least to leave him that. I am not very sanguine that it will, or that any real change in that direction can take place until the conditions that breed both the prisoner and the jailer will be forever abolished.”

Translations for this article:

• Spanish, “Escape de la bahía de Guantánamo”

But of course, this step is only a drop in the bucket representing justice for those jailed indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay. Now that Obama has made a meaningful step forward toward ending Gitmo, we must put pressure on the executive to see true justice is served. So what will true justice look like for those innocent individuals jailed at Guantanamo? Surely justice would not be to merely release these prisoners into Yemen, where they may very likely meet their end in death-by-drone at some later date.

First, we must look at compensation. In half of the union’s states, compensation is due to those who have wrongfully been imprisoned. Federal statute stipulates $50,000 per year of imprisonment, and $100,000 for those on death row. But of course, for far too many at Gitmo, their wrongful caging goes beyond the standard state or federal case. For example, many were never formally charged with a crime. Many were stripped from their homeland and brought to a foreign island. Many were either tortured directly or force fed during a heroic and continuing hunger strike. All were forced to live under the constant threat that any privileges afforded to them can be stripped away, if they ever refused to comply with the demands of guards. And lastly, many have been known to be innocent for years.

For all of these reasons, we must consider that due compensation far exceeds that of the average wrongfully imprisoned American. I do not mean to speak softly of the plight of your average American prisoner. Practice of solitary confinement has been found by human rights watchdogs to be nothing less than torture. But issues of solitary confinement at Guantanamo are even worse than your average federal supermax. As of 2009, a majority of Gitmo detainees were being held in solitary confinement, often deprived of sleep and beaten for the slightest deviations of prison protocol according the Center For Constitutional Rights.

The issue of compensation is then a difficult one to calculate. There are no standards one can abide by. I might suggest a lump sum of $2m for each innocent detainee, along with either continued compensation from their torturers or even a shifting of the torturers’ wages and benefits to those who should be freed. The same will go for any other prisoner who, in the past or in the future, will be proven innocent of crimes they have never even been accused of formally.

There is also the concerning issue of releasing detainees into Yemen, where I earlier half-jokingly referred to their possible fate of being bombed by the same government that at one time imprisoned them. President Obama, in the same recent speech that he addressed the issue of Guantanamo, also hinted that the drone policy of his administration is going to be made permanent and even be pursued to new degrees. Perhaps instead we should allow the detainees to be freed into the U.S., into any area of their choosing. Anthony Gregory has suggested Pennsylvania avenue as a possible relocation for them, but that might not be in the cards. I think that they should at least be given the option of living in America, as opposed to Yemen or other countries. Perhaps we can even get them on a path to U.S citizenship? This might, quite ironically, be the safest place for them.

And then there is the issue of future justice. Justice can not truly be served while the practices that led to their wrongful imprisonment are still being carried out. We must arrest their torturers and those responsible for implementing, endorsing and enforcing their torture. This includes both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, along with a lengthy list of top military brass. They, like all others, are entitled to a trial. Those found guilty must pay restitution. We must end the unjust occupations that made such black-bagging of individuals seem necessary. End our campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and all other nations under attack by the U.S government. End government secrecy. Allow free and open journalism about war crimes the U.S has committed. We must make a solemn promise to never allow such a travesty of justice to occur ever again.

Finally, there is the issue of legacy. Many of those detained unjustly have acted as noble heroes worthy of reverence. Their hunger strike forced the issue, laying bare the injustice of their imprisonment. As such, a memorial is in order. Perhaps we can set aside a space in the heart of Washington D.C, alongside those who seek to emblazon the injustice of Japanese internment camps, where family, friends and supporters can set up such a memorial. To create a memorial for all those innocent victims of a racist United States military.

We must honor, revere and restore as much justice as possible to these innocent victims. We must never forget.

Knefel describes watching the military commission proceedings as like “[watching] a high-stakes game of Calvinball, in which the rules and parameters are established before your eyes.”

From his report we learn that the government is seeking censor any words the defendants speak:

The prosecution, on behalf of the government, has argued that all utterances by the accused should be “presumptively classified” — that is, every possible statement by should be treated as secret government information — but this request has since been weakened.

If it sounds bizarre that the government can lay claim to an individual’s personal experiences and thoughts, well, it is. The prosecution’s argument is that the five defendants are in a “particularly credible position to confirm or deny” elements of the CIA’s rendition, detention and interrogation program. Having been tortured, they are in possession to describe it, and the government has clear incentives to keep them from doing so.

Perhaps the most amazing piece of information to come out of Knefel’s trip, however, is an exchange between him and Gen. Mark S. Martins, Chief Prosecutor in the KSM trial. While mentioned only briefly in the Nation article, this exchange can be found in full on the Oct. 23 episode of Radio Dispatch, the podcast Knefel hosts with his sister, comedian and journalist Molly. Here’s an excerpt:

Knefel: […] My question is, are we in danger of creating a permanent alternate legal system that is completely separate from the civilian system?

Gen. Martins: Let me address this. I mean, first of all, Congress passed a statute, signed into law by the President, that says this new rule, OK, as of 2009, we’re getting the meaning in effect(?) in this case. Beyond that, I could say I shouldn’t comment — that’s the will of our people! The sovereign will of our people through our legislature! That has meaning.

[…]

Criminal trials, rigorously conducted to the highest standard of proof we know in our law, although I know you’re not satisfied fully, many of you, with the transparency — are transparent. Much more transparent than a lot of other systems, including civil habeas proceedings for determining whether someone’s detained here. I think criminal trials — putting someone on notice of their charges, notwithstanding the concern people have about the (audio wonky) — that’s valuable. That is an instrumentality — an institution for a government that we’ll have to preserve. You can’t do these trials in federal court.

It may not be surprising or any sort of revelation — it’s pretty well known that temporary measures taken by the state have a way of staying permanent, after all — but to hear a government official basically come right out and admit that they’re creating a shadow legal system is still amazing to me.

The rare inside look at current foreign policy holds immense value for people trying to gain a detailed understanding of politics. The fact that released cables date back to 1966 aids in the value of historical research as well.

But what matters of importance can be found within the drama of the release?

It should not be surprising that government officials make disparaging comments about each other. National leaders are probably ready to pounce on whatever personal weaknesses they find in US diplomats as well. But is interesting to see exactly what kind of assessments they have of each other. Although revelations of information gathering at the United Nations were initially surprising, they really should not be a shock. Of course diplomats are trying to get the upper hand on each other and reporting items of interest to other government agencies. If anything each country only varies in its audacity. However, the human interest part of the story does provide a direct, personal confirmation of what people should realize about government officials. They have human flaws like the rest of us, so how do they get so much power? Partly because at every level they are working to gain advantage over one another.

There are at least six issues raised in the initial cable leaks that ought to be major news.

1) American diplomats offered to trade Guantanamo detainees to foreign nations in exchange for favors. The New York Times reports that “Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees.” American officials also “suggested that accepting more prisoners would be ‘a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.’” (All New York Times quotes are from November 28 article “Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy”)

2) The government of Saudi Arabia wants the US to attack Iran. Antiwar.com, which has provided excellent analysis of the leaked cables, reported that “Saudi King Abdullah has been repeatedly pressing the United States government to launch a unilateral attack on his long-standing rival, Iran.” Islamic sectarianism may be a motivating factor for Abullah. It should be remembered that the Obama Administration has just made the largest arms deal US history with Saudi Arabia, a theocratic state with a terrible record on civil liberties and gender equality. In addition, the New York Times reported that leaked cables indicate “Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda.” The influence of regional rivalries suggests balance-of-power politics at work in US foreign policy.

3) The United States told the Turkish government to toe the line on Iran. Antiwar.com describes how in late 2009, the Obama administration “privately warned the Turkish government not to criticize unsubstantiated allegations against Iran’s civilian nuclear program, in particular warning that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s comments made Turkey ‘vulnerable to international community criticism.’”

4) Afghan President Hamid Karzai claims that the Pakistani government is forcing Taliban militants to keep fighting coalition forces. If it is true that Pakistan is intentionally lengthening the war, it should be considered evidence that war is not unavoidable but is a deliberate policy for furthering state power.

(See The Raw Story, “Pakistan forcing Taliban militants to keep fighting, Karzai says in leaked cable” by Daniel Tencer)

5) Zia Massoud, the vice president of Afghanistan, was found to be carrying $52 million in cash when he visited the United Arab Emirates. Despite suspicion of corruption, the New York Times reports Massoud was ultimately allowed to keep the cash “without revealing the money’s origin or destination.”

6) Yemen officials boldly lie about US bombing. While it has been previously reported that the Yemeni government was involved in covering up the US government’s role in missile strikes aimed at Al Qaeda, leaked cables provide an inside look at the attitude toward deception. The New York Times quotes the Yemeni president as stating “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” which prompted the deputy prime minister to “joke that he had just ‘lied’” to the country’s parliament by telling them Yemeni forces were responsible for the strikes.

The leaks also contain confirmation of unsurprising bad deeds. They reveal that US officials pressured German authorities to prevent them from arresting CIA operatives for the mistaken abduction and detention of a German citizen with the same name of a suspected militant.  Government agents expect to operate above the law, and a more powerful government can leverage its power to prevent rivals from holding its agents accountable.

Similarly unsurprising, but nevertheless interesting for their viewpoint, are numerous allegations of corruption, descriptions of the Russian mafia state, and revelations of hacking directed by the Chinese government. Also of note are political assessments of North Korea.

But perhaps the biggest story is how the cables made it to the news in the first place. It is believed that a disgruntled soldier named Bradley Manning downloaded files from a government information network then gave the information to Wikileaks. Manning, a low-level intelligence analyst, was one of 2.5 to 3 million US citizens with access to the network. The US government had apparently set up the vast network for the sake of facilitating the exchange of information between different government agencies, preventing communications failures from becoming weak points.

(See Der Spiegel, “Leaked Cables Reveal True US Worldview” and The Guardian, “How 250,000 US embassy cables were leaked” )

The dilemma of the vast, vulnerable information network demonstrates tension between security and bigness, but also between security and secrecy. The more people who have access to the network, the more likely one person will take information from it. Yet the fewer people who have access to information, the harder it is to share vital information and pick up on unnoticed connections.

It should also be noted that these are State Department cables, none classified at the highest level of secrecy. What information exists in the bowels of intelligence agencies remains to be seen, possibly after a leak.

So take the opportunity to see the world through the eyes of the State Department. Go to Wikileaks and reach into the stash. And ask why such information was only meant to be seen by a privileged minority.