Center for International Policy

Symbol of Injustice

By Wayne S. Smith
March 27, 2007
The Sun-Sentinel

Share |

The confessions of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, given on Feb. 10 at Guantanamo and released on Feb. 14, grabbed headlines all over the U.S. And no wonder. Mohammed, a right-hand man of Osama bin Laden, virtually boasted of being the mastermind behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks and many other acts of violence. He himself, he said, had personally beheaded the American journalist Daniel Pearl.

He apparently also said he had been tortured, though those words were redacted by military authorities. Given the enthusiasm with which he related his terrorist exploits on Feb. 10, one might wonder at any need to torture him. He gave the impression of a man who had no regrets whatever over what he'd done; in fact, was clearly proud of it and couldn't wait to tell others.

Though his "confessions" caused a public stir, they are in fact not new. Mohammed had been held in a secret CIA prison for over three years. He had told all to U.S. authorities long ago.

Mohammed and some 13 others, all confessed terrorists, were brought to Guantanamo from secret CIA prisons last September. So why now the public theater?

Could it be that amid growing pressures to close the prison, the Bush administration needed something to give credence to its claim that the detainees there were all dangerous terrorists? After all, of the some 745 who had been held at Guantanamo since the first prisoners arrived in January 2002, not a single one has been convicted of any crime, and only 10 have even been charged. Over the years, some 360 detainees were quietly returned to their home countries, where most were found innocent of any crime and released.

The majority of the some 385 detainees still held at Guantanamo, prior to September 2006, were arrested by Pakistani forces or the Afghan Northern Alliance and turned over to U.S. forces -- often for cash rewards. No evidence of anything was required. Most would seem to have been guilty of nothing. But even so, they have been held year after year under deplorable conditions, and without any idea as to what, if any, charges were lodged against them. To many in the world, the word "Guantanamo" had come to mean "injustice" and pressure grew to close the prison.

And so, it would seem, to change the situation's complexion, the administration last September brought in 14 real terrorists. As Mark Denbeaux, a Seton Hall University law professor who represents two Tunisians held at Guantanamo, put it after Mohammed's testimony was published: "The government has finally brought someone into Gitmo who admits to being someone who could be called an enemy combatant."

Exactly! And the tactic seems to be working -- at least with those who don't need convincing anyway. Florida Republican Rep. Tom Feeney, for example, issued a press release saying, "I absolutely object to the Democrats' plan to close down Guantanamo Bay and relocate America's most wanted terrorist thugs to American soil."

But in fact, while bringing Mohammed and the other 13 known terrorists to Guantanamo may slightly alter the fa–ade, it does not get to the heart of the problem at all. Hundreds of men have been held over many years, with little or no evidence against them, abused, and at least early on, even tortured. Guantanamo has indeed become a symbol of man's inhumanity to man and should be closed.

The 14 recently brought there and the handful of detainees already there against whom charges have been filed or against whom there is convincing evidence, should be transferred to maximum security military prisons in the United States until they can be tried and then in most cases probably imprisoned for good.

But they should be tried in real courts, not in the military commissions trumped up by President Bush in which they would be denied habeas corpus, denied presumption of innocence, denied the right to a lawyer of choice, the right to challenge and present evidence, and various other rights that are normally taken for granted. Indeed, Congress should move to abrogate the Military Commissions Act itself.

And what of the other some 350 to 360 detainees against whom there seems to be little or no evidence? Each case should be examined carefully. If there is reasonably convincing evidence against any of them, then they also should be transferred to military prison facilities in the U.S. while their cases are further investigated (not merely thought of once a year, as has been the case in the past). Those against whom there is no convincing evidence should forthwith be transferred to the custody of their own governments. This has been done 360 times so far, without dire consequences.

If their governments will not immediately accept them, they should be transferred to holding facilities in the U.S. The important thing is that they be removed from Guantanamo.

It -- and the symbol of shame it has come to represent -- must be closed.

Wayne S. Smith is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C., and an adjunct professor of Latin American Studies at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.