Let them read the documents. Let them try to tell us after that (as some still do, even now) that the Afghan War was fought well, and fought morally; that Guantanamo was a limited and necessary evil; that there was nothing that amounted to torture; that the prisoners stolen from across the world were almost all fanatics and that it was necessary for democratic states to excuse themselves from the rule of law in order to save it.
“If you could only know what we can know, you would understand that what we are doing is right,” our leaders used to assure us.
Well now we really do know — we have the documents, we have the transcripts of interviews with former prisoners, we have everything it takes to understand the nasty story of Guantanamo, exposed in 759 leaked documents containing the words of the people who ran the place. And it is obvious that we should have seen through the evasions from the start.
The leaked files published by the Guardian and the New York Times reveal horror that lies only partly in the physical things that were done to inmates — the desperate brutality of heated isolation cells, restraining straps and forced interrogation. Such things are already grimly familiar and have been widely condemned, and perhaps for the 172 inmates who remain in Camp Delta despite US President Barack Obama’s promise to close it, they continue in some lesser form. Worse things have been done in war, not least by the British, as emerging evidence from the campaign against the Mau Mau in Kenya should remind us.
TANGLED SYSTEM
However, what is given new prominence by these latest Guantanamo files is the cold, incompetent stupidity of the system: A system that tangled up the old and the young, the sick and the innocent. A system in which to say you were not a terrorist might be taken as evidence of your cunning. A system designed less to hand out justice than to process and supply information from inmates, as if they were not humans, but items of digital data in some demented storage machine programmed always to reject the answer: “No, I was not involved.”
The clinical idiocy of this dreadful place is the most chilling thing of all, since it strips away even the cynical but persuasive defense: It was harsh, but it worked and it kept the world safe.
It didn’t work, much of the time. These files show that some of the information collected was garbage and that many of those held knew nothing that could be of use to the people demanding answers from them. Far from securing the fight against terror, the people running the camp faced an absurdist battle to educate a 14-year-old peasant boy kidnapped by an Afghan tribe and treat the dementia, depression and osteoarthritis of an 89-year-old man caught up in a raid on his son’s house.
Other cases are just as pathetic. Jamal al-Harith, born Ronald Fiddler in Manchester in 1966, was imprisoned by the Taliban as a possible spy, after being found wandering through Afghanistan as a Muslim convert. In a movement of Kafkaesque horror the Americans held him in Camp X-Ray simply because he had been a prisoner of its enemy.
“He was expected to have knowledge of Taliban treatment of prisoners and interrogation tactics,” the files record.
Again and again, what stands out from these stories is not some as yet undiscovered horror from the secretive steel-barred and orange-suited compound, but the chaos, the confusion and the casualness of it all. The people who ran this place were not deceived. They too could see that this was not the distillation of evil that the US government claimed it to be, but a shambolic catch from a trawl whose nets had dragged in all sorts of people, many of them by mistake.
Some of the small fry and the innocent were eventually returned (it is important to acknowledge this), but innocence did not exempt them from ill-treatment, or a system of interrogation guided by a note among the files — GTMO Matrix of Threat Indicators for Enemy Combatants — that reads as if engineered to prove that people are hiding from the truth. It is no surprise that the files record that one in seven of those detained developed psychiatric illnesses. This was a place that portrayed itself as the ultimate expression of a forensic and rational war run by the most sophisticated power on the planet, with the best intelligence available.
The reality was an almost random collection of the bad, the accidental and the irrelevant. The US state can be understood as such, but could never own up.
Among the prisoners are very dangerous men: real terrorists, driven by hate and out to destroy the sort of liberal values we believe superior. Some of them had done things that merited imprisonment (although that does not mean it was -necessarily the US’ duty to seize them). Some are still there. However, nine years after that creaking warrior former US vice president Dick Cheney called the inmates “the worst of a very bad lot,” the possibility of prosecution has been polluted by his Guantanamo regime.
As a result Obama — who was surely serious when he said that he wanted to shut the place — has failed to make much progress in closing Guantanamo down. The Washington Post recently described the final sad failure of the president’s attempt to have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, prosecuted in a federal court; he will now face a military tribunal of the sort the president once wanted to abolish.
NOWHERE TO GO
The half-life of the toxic slurry left by Obama’s predecessors has made decommissioning the extrajudicial system too difficult. As the documents show, the camp has been left holding a miserable mix of detainees who have nowhere safe to go — such as Yemenis and Chinese Uighur Muslims — the demonstrably dangerous and the -unprosecutable. Pull it to bits, and some of those still inside will try to hit back at the West (as perhaps 150 of those already released may already be doing). However, keep it going, and this president is dragged back toward his predecessor’s disaster.
The final indictment of Guantanamo is not just that it broke the rule of law temporarily, but that by doing so it made the breach permanent. Justified as a way of gathering information from the guilty, it forced the innocent to invent falsehoods as well.
The security forces and politicians who permitted the camp often accuse its critics of being simplistic and squeamish. They say that the things that happened inside it were much less nasty than the things the people it contains did to others. In some cases that’s right. However, the Guantanamo system piled lie upon lie through the momentum of its own existence, until no one could know which those cases were, or what was true.
At times, I have feared that obsessing over the injustices of Guantanamo Bay has become a surrogate for a wider hatred of the US. Read the files, and you’ll realize that obsession is the only possible humane response.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS