Where is Obama Headed?
• Reject Executive Rule! Step Up the Fight for Rights!
• Extending Use of Executive Rule
• Plans to Move Guantánamo to the U.S.
• Guantánamo Bay: Obama’s Options • Guantánamo: Military Oaths Confront the Constitution in the Omar Khadr Case • 100 Days to Close Guantánamo!
Reject Executive Rule!
Step Up the Fight for Rights!
President-elect Barack Obama is indicating that his administration will further strengthen the Office of the President as an instrument of dictate against the people and all contenders for power, at home and abroad. This can most readily be seen in plans to use executive orders to “quickly” reverse some of the actions taken by President George W. Bush, also using executive orders. Using the anger with Bush, Obama and his transition team are presenting these plans as examples of the change they will bring on taking office. What stands out, however, is the very use of executive authority “without waiting for Congress,” as his transition team puts it. What is required in the situation is the renouncing of executive rule and dictate. What is occurring is its strengthening. There is not discussion concerning reversing the executive actions by Bush that brutally attacked the rights of the people by outlawing them outright. These include the aggression against Syria and Pakistan and secret orders to bomb “anywhere in the world to strike against al Qaeda;” the broad spying with no warrants; and the branding of people as enemy combatants so as to detain them indefinitely without charges.
While Obama is talking about making a priority of closing the hated Guantánamo concentration camp, he is not renouncing the authority of the president, as Commander in Chief, to brand anyone anywhere as an “enemy combatant.” The use of “enemy combatant” as a special category of prisoners without rights is in part why Guantánamo exists at all. As well, using executive rule, Obama is now considering creating a new court system for what are termed “national security matters.” This involves cases where the executive determines the individual is “too dangerous” to release but the government does not want to reveal their “evidence,” including intelligence, agents, informants, use of torture, etc. It is said that the usual norms of the courts, including innocent until proven guilty, those for evidence, confronting accusers, etc. cannot be met and a special "national security court" is needed.
It is the Office of the President, again using executive rule that will determine which “enemy combatants” fall into such a category and what the character of such a new system will be. In this manner, Obama plans to extend the effort put in place by Bush to have courts by and for the executive, with their own rules of evidence, appeals, what lawyers and judges can and cannot do, etc. As one of Obama’s legal advisor’s put it, Obama wants to create a “new legal system” that will “both be and appear to be fundamentally fair in light of the circumstances.” He thinks Obama will be given the benefit of the doubt in creating such a system. Another advisor emphasized that the problem being addressed is Guantánamo's failure “to successfully and swiftly prosecute terrorists.” The aim is not to safeguard the rights of the people, but to enable the executive to more swiftly and successfully prosecute them. And in setting up such a new system inside the U.S., it expands the ability to target people inside the country as “enemy combatants.” In addition, it serves to establish the ability of the executive alone to create a “new legal system.”
The Obama campaign has emphasized its plans to overcome “divided government.” He says the country will “rise or fall as one nation, one people.” As the working class and people fight for the change they require and demand, what will be the place of branding people “enemy combatants” and a new legal system to prosecute them? Can it be considered a coincidence that while these discussions are taking place, youth organizers opposing war and repression at the Republican National Convention are being tried as terrorists?
It is also the case that Obama has not opposed the secret orders issued by Bush to “attack anywhere in the world,” to hit at al Qaeda, including bombing countries the U.S. is not at war with. The continuing attacks against Pakistan and Syria are part of this and have not been denounced by Obama as aggression and crimes against the peace. Given the call to rely on executive orders, Obama is already indicating that such orders, secret or not, will continue.
The strengthening of executive rule and extending it to create “new legal systems” and “more swiftly and successfully prosecute terrorists,” serves the aims of the ruling class to step up their aggression and repression of the peoples at home and abroad. And the fact that Obama may well be “given the benefit of the doubt,” makes this direction all the more dangerous.
Increased executive rule is an expression of the concentration of political power by the most powerful sectors of the ruling class now taking place. It is an instrument against the empowerment of the people, which is required for democracy to advance at this time. By stepping up the fight for rights the people can strengthen their struggle for peace and security and block the current direction of rule by the executive — and an executive that is first and foremost a Commander in Chief.
[TOP]
Extending Use of Executive Rule
President-elect Barack Obama developed his transition team in August and is now putting them into high gear. Transition team spokespeople are giving early indications that his administration will continue use of executive rule and indeed extend it further. This news is stemming from two main issues being reported, one involving reversing President George W. Bush’s executive orders, using new executive orders while the other relates to closing the hated concentration camp, Guantánamo. Another issue of concern involving executive rule is the stand taken concerning Bush’s secret order authorizing the military to “attack al Qaeda anywhere in the world.”
Obama’s transition team is presenting the likely extension of executive rule by promoting that Obama will act quickly to reverse some of President George W. Bush’s executive orders. Obama will do this by himself issuing new executive orders. John Podesta, one of Obama’s top transition leaders said, “There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for Congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that.” He added that “Obama feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set.” Obama currently has his transition team looking over which policies can be reversed through executive orders. At the moment the issues being promoted are those on stem cell research and oil and gas drilling in Utah.
One of the most significant features of “the course the Bush administration set” was precisely governing through executive rule. Podesta is bringing out that this method, using executive orders rather than legislation as one key component, is to be continued. It is worth noting that some of Bush’s most significant and criminal executive orders — such as those authorizing unwarranted spying on Americans and people worldwide guilty of no crime; those authorizing the CIA’s secret prisons; and those authorizing torture, are not being mentioned as the ones Obama will reverse.
This is further evident in the discussions being reported concerning closing Guantánamo, a campaign pledge made by both Obama and John McCain. While it is likely that Obama will act to close Guantánamo, there is no indication that he will eliminate the executive order giving the president authority to name anyone an enemy combatant — including people inside the country and out, on the battlefield and off, who are citizens and those that are not. Presidential authority to brand people as enemy combatants was the basis for people being sent to Guantánamo in the first place. It was also used to deny them their rights as prisoners of war and the attempts to justify torture.
Closing Guantánamo while keeping in place authority to brand people enemy combatants does not reverse the Bush direction, it opens the path for it to be carried further. This can be seen in the proposals coming from the Obama team to essentially move Guantánamo to the U.S. and create a special court for “national security” cases (see article on Guantánamo below for more).
Executive Orders for Striking Al Qaeda
During his campaign, Obama emphasized that he will increase aggression against Afghanistan and Pakistan, in the name of “striking at al Qaeda.” He said, “I will finally finish the fight against bin Laden and the al Qaeda.” He considers the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan the “center of the war on terror” and said he would escalate U.S. aggression in the area, including sending more troops. And when the U.S. bombed Syria during the election campaign, there was no opposition to this aggression from Obama.
It is not surprising then that “reversing Bush’s executive orders” also does not include a secret 2004 order authorizing the military to “strike al Qaeda anywhere in the world.” It is now being reported that at least a dozen military attacks were authorized by the order, signed by then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and approved by Bush. The order specifically identified 15-20 countries, including Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, other Persian Gulf states and Somalia. It gave the Pentagon “authority” to strike anywhere in the world, including bombing “countries not at war” with the U.S. if it involved “striking al Qaeda.” As well, covert “black operations” inside Iran are also said to be taking place.
It is well known that the U.S. launched the illegal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of “striking al Qaeda,” and is carrying out the continued killing of civilians and bombings of Pakistan and Syria using the same justification. There is no indication that use of such secret orders and/or open executive orders authorizing similar actions, will now end. On the contrary, there is every appearance that part of the transformation Obama will carry out will be to use the Office of the President to put in place mechanisms that eliminate Congressional powers while institutionalize executive authority to act “without waiting for Congress to act.”
[TOP]
One of the campaign promises made by president-elect Barack Obama was to close the Guantánamo prison. News reports inform that Obama considers closing Guantánamo as a "top priority." Doing so "is going to take time," one of his team members said.
Guantánamo is notorious for its torture of prisoners and for holding hundreds of people for years without charges. Their detention was carried out on the basis of President George W. Bush giving himself the authority to brand anyone, anywhere, as an "enemy combatant." The classification "enemy combatant," and later "illegal enemy combatant" does not require any charges. It is considered "preventive detention," to defend "national security."
The classification "enemy combatant" is not recognized by any international law or convention. It was created and used in part to deny the rights of the prisoners as prisoners of war as put forward in the Geneva Conventions. The Convention includes an absolute ban on torture and the right to have a neutral body determine the classification of the prisoners.
While it is reported Obama now is planning to close Guantánamo, so far there is no indication that he plans to eliminate the classification of enemy combatant and the authority of the President to brand anyone in that manner. Without such action, there is nothing to prevent the continued military detention of people charged with no crime.
There are also no plans to apologize to and compensate the hundreds of prisoners and their families released without any charges, though many were tortured and held for years. Indeed, it is quite likely that at least part of the reason for closing Guantánamo is to prevent further investigation or charges against all those responsible for the crimes carried out there under the authority of the Office of the President.
Discussion centers on moving Guantánamo to the U.S. and how to contend with prisoners whose cases involve "national security." Reports indicate Obama is considering bringing what are now about 250 prisoners to the U.S. He has said that the existing civilian and military court-martial systems provide "a framework for dealing with the terrorists." The plan under discussion is to have some of the prisoners charged and tried in the U.S. criminal court, or courts martial system. Others are to be released as "posing no danger."
Obama and prosecutors are concerned that criminal trials may be difficult considering many of the prisoners have been tortured. As well, the "evidence" that is said to exist is largely from informants and CIA operatives that the government does not want to reveal. This raises a likelihood that many will be repatriated to their home or third party countries to avoid such trials. Some whose cases do not pose much difficulty on these matters will go to trial.
Perhaps more significant is discussion concerning a third group whose number remains secret. There are cases involving "national security." It is said that using the existing criminal or court martial systems would risk exposing "classified intelligence" and "intelligence sources and tactics" as well as undercover CIA or other government agents. It could also expose cooperation of other countries with the U.S. Benjamin Wittes, a Brookings Institute fellow, explained that the government considers some of the prisoners as "too dangerous to release, but difficult or impossible to prosecute."
The military commissions Bush created have already been discredited so are not being considered. Harvard's Laurence Tribe, one of Obama's main advisors on Guantánamo pointed out: "[I]n reality and symbolically, the idea that we have people in legal black holes is an extremely serious black mark," which, he said, "has to be dealt with." Obama is considering creating a new legal system, Tribe said. "It would have to be some sort of hybrid that involves military commissions that actually administer justice rather than just serve as kangaroo courts," he explained. "It will have to both be and appear to be fundamentally fair in light of the circumstances. I think people are going to give an Obama administration the benefit of the doubt in that regard," he said.
Developing such a new court system, coupled with maintaining the president's authority to brand anyone anywhere an "enemy combatant" is understood to be a mechanism to contend with dissent and "civil unrest," using "national security" as the justification for detaining and trying people in a manner that is not consistent with rule of law. The government is already engaging in such actions, using raids on immigrant communities and detention of undocumented workers. It used the threat of "national security" to justify a massive police presence and repeated provocations against demonstrators at the Democratic and Republican national conventions. Eight youth are now being charged with "conspiracy in the furtherance of terrorism" for their organizing efforts at the Republican National Convention. The organizing involved no terrorism, no violence, nothing illegal but rather demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience. In light of these developments, what would be the place of such a "hybrid" court dealing with matters of "national security?" As "Commander in Chief," it would be the President who would determine who is an "enemy combatant," who is to be tried in such a court and under what conditions. Obama is attempting to use the closure of Guantánamo as the means for bringing such a court into being, Tribe said, adding that it is hoped Obama will be given "the benefit of the doubt." Indeed, such a possibility makes the situation all the more dangerous.
[TOP]
Guantánamo Bay: Obama’s Options
Barack Obama, the U.S. president-elect, has said repeatedly that he will shut down the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba and is now faced with decisions about how to proceed. Guantánamo Bay has been widely condemned by international rights groups and they have urged Obama to move swiftly once he begins his White House term in January.
The detention and treatment of prisoners held at the U.S. facility has been widely condemned by international rights groups and the United Nation (UN) and European Union (EU).
It has held more than 750 captives from around the world since opening in 2002, including many who were captured during the U.S. “war on terror” that followed the attacks on the U.S. of September 11, 2001. Around 250 prisoners remain in the camp — most held without charge or trial — including 50 or so that have been cleared for release but, the U.S. government says, cannot be returned to their home countries, for fear of torture and persecution.
Two, including Osama bin Laden’s former driver, have already faced full military tribunals, set up by the administration of President George W. Bush to try the detainees, but widely condemned as unfair by rights groups.
Aides to Obama say he remains committed to closing Guantánamo and trying the remaining detainees. “President-Elect Obama said throughout his campaign that the legal framework at Guantánamo has failed to successfully and swiftly prosecute terrorists, and he shares the broad bipartisan belief that Guantánamo should be closed,” Denis McDonough, an advisor to Obama on foreign policy, said in a statement on Monday.
There are several options now on the table for the new administration.
1. Trying detainees using a new U.S. legal system
Obama has considered proposing a new court system to try the Guantánamo detainees and has appointed a committee to decide how such a court would operate, recent media reports have said. How specifically that system would operate remains unclear. “There is no process in place to make that decision until his [Obama’s] national security and legal teams are assembled,” McDonough said.
But the idea of setting up a separate legal system for the detainees has already drawn some criticism, and invited comparisons to the military tribunals set up by the Bush administration.
“There would be concern about establishing a completely new system,” Adam Schiff, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee and former federal prosecutor, said. “And in the sense that establishing a regimen of detention that includes American citizens and foreign nationals that takes place on U.S. soil and departs from the criminal justice system — trying to establish that would be very difficult.”
2. Criminal trials in the U.S.
Obama aides have also said Guantánamo’s remaining detainees could be prosecuted in federal criminal courts. Doing so in the U.S. would grant the detainees legal rights equivalent to those of citizens, thus creating a host of problems for prosecutors. Evidence gathered through military interrogation or from intelligence sources could be thrown out.
Defendants would also have the right to confront witnesses, which means undercover CIA officers or informants might have to take the stand, jeopardizing their identities and revealing classified intelligence tactics.
The idea of bringing alleged terrorists onto U.S. soil has also proved controversial. Last year, the U.S. senate overwhelmingly passed a non-binding bill opposing bringing detainees to the United States.
John Cornyn, a Republican senate judiciary committee member, says it would be a “colossal mistake to treat terrorism as a mere crime.”
“It would be a stunning disappointment if one of the new administration’s first priorities is to give foreign terror suspects captured on the battlefield the same legal rights and protections as American citizens accused of crimes,’’ he said.
3. Trials in the U.S. military court-martial system
Use of the U.S. military’s court-martial system is another possible option to try Guantánamo detainees. “The court-martial system could be adapted very easily by Congress — I think that is by far the better option,” Scott Silliman, a law professor at Duke University and director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, told Al Jazeera.
A U.S. federal trial, like the case brought against Zacarias Moussaoui, who was convicted of conspiring to kill U.S. citizens in the September 11 attacks, could be drawn out over several years.
However, courts-martial, unlike federal trials, can take place outside the U.S., but maintain a higher standard of evidence than that of the current military tribunals used by the Bush administration.
But critics have also said that the higher standard of evidence could create problems for the prosecuting teams similar to that in criminal trials. Silliman, however, says the U.S. has much to gain from the system, in terms of credibility, for holding detainees to the same standards as its own military forces.
4. Repatriation
For the detainees that the government maintains no evidence of criminality, Obama advisers told the Associated Press news agency on Monday that they would probably be returned to the countries where they were captured for continued detention or rehabilitation.
The outgoing administration contends this is easier said than done. “We’ve tried very hard to explain to people how complicated it is,” Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for the White House, says. “When you pick up people off the battlefield that have a terrorist background, it’s not just so easy to let them go.”
Some governments have denied that the Guantánamo prisoners are in fact their citizens, while others have been reluctant to agree to U.S. requests to imprison or monitor former Guantánamo detainees. The Bush administration says talks with Yemen for the release of around 90 Yemeni detainees into a rehabilitation program have so far been fruitless.
5. Resettlement in other countries
At least 50 of Guantánamo inmates have already been cleared for release but the U.S. government says they cannot be returned to their home countries for fear of torture and persecution. The U.S. state department and international human rights groups have urged third party countries to accept these Guantánamo prisoners.
In Berlin on Monday, five rights groups issued a joint call to European governments to grant humanitarian resettlement and protection to detainees from China, Libya, Russia, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan, among others. “This would have a double effect: helping to end the ordeal of an individual unlawfully held in violation of his human rights, and helping end the international human rights scandal that is Guantánamo,” Daniel Gore van, who manages Amnesty International’s “Counter Terror with Justice” campaign, said.
Analysts have said international governments might be more willing to negotiate on this issue with an Obama administration because the president-elect has spoken out against unilateral U.S. action and is less likely to have as strict requirements.
6. Keeping Guantánamo open
The likelihood of keeping the Guantánamo Bay detention facility open is apparently a slim one in part because of the negative publicity the Obama administration would receive. The facility has been condemned by the UN, the EU, and numerous human rights groups, and many in the U.S. argue that the camp is also a liability. Even George Bush acknowledged in 2006 he would “like to close” it.
“Guantánamo, for most people, is a lightning rod for everything that is wrong with the United States,” Silliman says. “I’m not sure Obama would be able to back away from his campaign pledge.”
Were it to remain open, the U.S. Congress would likely have to pass a new law to keep the detainees there, and push through humanitarian and legal changes. Another alternative is for the U.S. to work with other countries to create jointly- operated detention facilities.
Whatever the plan the new administration pursues, Silliman says Obama is not likely to push through changes on January 21, his first day in office. “We should not expect it to take place in the first couple of weeks of his administration, or even in the first couple months,” he says. “All of this is going to take time.”
[TOP]
Guantánamo: Military Oaths Confront the
Constitution in the Omar Khadr Case
In response to the events of September 11, the U.S. government asked the Afghan- istan government to extradite Osama bin Laden, who was a citizen of Saudi Arabia. As usual for such situations, the Afghanistan government asked to see the evidence against bin Laden. Instead of providing that evidence, President Bush declared, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty” and began bombing Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. The U.S. subsequently refused the Afghanistan government’s extradition offer. The U.S. then invaded Afghanistan, destroyed its government, and began a military occupation. This attack had not been sanctioned by the UN Security Council; hence, this was an illegal act of aggression by the United States. The UN Charter, which the U.S. wrote and agreed to, states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. The government of Afghanistan had not attacked the U.S., had not threatened to attack the U.S., and had no capability to attack the U.S. Thus, even arguments of national self-defense, or pre-emptive war to prevent an anticipated attack, cannot explain or justify the U.S. attack on Afghanistan and the destruction of its government and civil order.
On July 27, 2002, U.S. forces waging war in Afghanistan attacked a rural residential compound, and the people inside defended themselves. An air strike was called in, and the compound was destroyed. As U.S. forces approached the ruins, someone in the ruins threw a hand grenade and killed Delta Force commando Christopher Speer. When the U.S. forces finally entered the ruins, they found a child, Omar Khadr, still alive but severely wounded. An eye-witness at the scene concluded that Omar had not thrown the grenade, and the July 28, 2002, report by the U.S. commander at the scene stated that the person throwing the grenade had died, ruling out Omar as the suspect. Two months later, that report was changed to lay the blame on Omar. The changed report was post-dated July 28, 2002; hence, it is a fraudulent document.
The child, Omar Khadr, was born in Toronto, Canada, on September 19, 1986. He was in Afghanistan because his parents took him there when he was 10 years old, to indoctrinate him and to give him military training for jihad. He has been in U.S. military prisons for the past 6 years, most of that in Guantánamo. He has been subjected to torture, for example, stripped naked while guards photographed his genitals, shackled in painful positions, moved to new cells over and over, every 3 hours for 21 days, to make him have a mental breakdown. On April 24, 2007, in a U.S. military court in Guantánamo, Omar was charged with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying on U.S. forces in Afghanistan. On June 24, 2007, a U.S. military judge dismissed the case because the military court only had jurisdiction over “unlawful enemy combatants” and that was not Omar’s classification. On June 29, 2007, another military judge refused to re-instate charges against Omar. On September 24, 2007, the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review over-ruled the two earlier dismissals, and Omar is again charged with military crimes. Clearly prosecution has become persecution, for reasons of revenge and politics, not for reasons of law or justice.
There are many legal problems with this case.
1) If the U.S. invasion was an illegal act, then the Delta Force commando was killed in the commission of a war crime. If the U.S. invasion is considered to be a legal war, then the Delta Force commando is a casualty of war, not a victim of murder.
2) The Delta Force commando had been engaged in an attack on the people in the home, trying to kill them. Their fighting back is self-defense.
3) The case against Omar rests on a fraudulent document, and exonerating eyewitness testimony has been withheld by the prosecutors.
4) The U.S. Constitution, in Amendment VIII, declares that the government may not inflict “cruel and unusual punishments.”
5) The military officers participating in this case as prosecutors and as judges, by that very participation, violate their sworn oaths to honor the U.S. Constitution. Consider these four points:
5a) All U.S. military officers take an oath, to “solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”.
5b) The U.S. Constitution, in Article VI, states that “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land”.
5c) One treaty passed by the U.S. Congress, signed by the U.S. president, is the “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict”. It is “optional” because it was an addition to the Convention on the Right of the Child, and nations had the option to ratify the addition or not. The U.S. chose to ratify it, as did most nations.
5d) By this treaty, a child is any person under age 18. By this treaty, child soldiers are victims of war. By this treaty, the U.S. is obligated to be “mindful of the necessity of taking into consideration the economic, social and political root causes of the involvement of children in armed conflicts,” including the possibility that “armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State” may be recruiting child soldiers. By this treaty, the U.S. is obligated to “take all feasible measures to ensure that persons within their jurisdiction recruited or used in hostilities contrary to the present Protocol are demobilized or otherwise released from service”, and the U.S. is obligated to “accord to such persons all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration”. Because these are treaty obligations, they are Constitutional obligations. They are not optional.
Because Omar Khadr was a child when captured by U.S. military forces, his imprisonment, torture, and prosecution by U.S. military forces violate the “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict”. Violating that treaty in turn violates the U.S. Constitution. For military officers to violate the U.S. Constitution in turn violates their sworn oaths. People who violate their sworn oaths cannot participate in a court of law. Thus, no U.S. military personnel may be involved in the Khadr Case.
Guantánamo and other prisons were constructed outside of the territorial boundaries of the U.S. in order to try to avoid the duties and obligations enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. However, U.S. military officers’ oaths to support and defend the U.S. Constitution have no territorial limits. In the Khadr Case, all judges and prosecutors must be persons who are free to violate the U.S. Constitution. That excludes all U.S. military personnel.
The Khadr Case should be closed. The U.S. government should fulfill its treaty obligations to release Omar, assist his recovery and compensate him for unlawful confinement and torture. Military prosecutors should investigate and charge officers who have been violating their sworn oaths to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
Floyd Rudmin is a social psychologist with research on minorities and on conflict. He can be reached at profrudmin@yahoo.ca
[TOP]
Witness Against Torture is excited to announce a new campaign to close Guantánamo and end torture by the U.S. Kicking off with a nine day fast, the campaign will consist of a daily, sustained physical presence across from the White House and a weekly schedule of Executive and Congressional education, public teach-ins and film screenings, prayer and vigiling, direct action and public pressure throughout the first 100 days of the new administration.
Barack Obama and John McCain might not agree about much, but they are both in favor of closing Guantánamo.
“We’re going to close Guantánamo. And we’re going to restore habeas corpus. We’re going to lead by example by not just word but by deed. That’s our vision for the future.” — Barack Obama, June 2007
“I believe we should close Guantánamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.” — John McCain, March 2008
We know that these proclamations are little more than words without sustained, visible and effective resistance. So, starting with Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009, Witness Against Torture is launching a 100 Day Campaign to demand the new administration close Guantánamo.
Along with campaign partners like the Center for Constitutional Rights and September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, we demand:
• Close the U.S. detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba within the first 100 days of the new administration. Prisoners currently held at Guantánamo should either be charged with a crime and prosecuted in U.S. Federal Court, or released with a repatriation plan that permits the detainee either to return to his home country or to receive asylum in a third country.
• Close other U.S. detention centers worldwide that do not comply with international human rights standards, including: Bagram Airforce Base in Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib in Iraq, and the so-called CIA “black sites” around the world.
Get Involved with the 100 Day Campaign! There are tons of things you can do!
• Organize a group to Come to DC: Sign up for a day, a weekend or a whole week. Demonstrate, fast, pray, visit your Congressional representatives, seek a meeting with the new president or their staff. We’ll help you plan your time.
• Participate in our Nine Day Public Fast: From Jan. 11 (the 7-year anniversary of the first prisoners being taken to Guantánamo) through Jan. 20 (Inauguration Day) to kick off the 100 Day Campaign.
• Join one of the Working Groups: Media, Outreach Logistics, Action Support, Public Events or Lobbying
• Organize a Solidarity Action in Your Own Community: Screen a film, write letters to the President, lobby your local representative, hold a march or vigil. We can help with resources and materials.
• Invite a Speaker: Think you want to bring a group to Washington, we’ll send someone to your community to talk about the campaign, answer questions, and motivate more people to join the work
• Buy and wear orange “Shut Down Guantánamo” t-shirts. Tell a friend about our website and encourage them to get involved, too!
Check back often since we’ll be adding more and more details as the campaign progresses.
SOURCE: WitnessTorture.org