Preserving freedom

By Florence Gold

It was the brilliant Russian writer Dostoyevsky who said that one can judge a society by its prisons and sadly that is one of the important areas by which the world will now judge the United States. Even though fallaciously we are told that we represent the struggle between good and evil, Americans certainly know that brutality and torture are frequently used in American prisons.

"Last year Congressional Democrats allowed the Bush administration to ram through one of the worst laws in the nation's history, The Military Commissions Act of 2006," read a New York Times editorial. The Democrats have since pledged to repair the damage that the law has done to our justice system and to our global image, but disturbing political tactics and typical administrative evasions seem to be frustrating that effort.

The sharpness of the above criticism and the frankness of the denunciation in a recent New York Times editorial demonstrate national anxiety over our administration's decision to inhibit and destroy basic human rights. Prisoners caught in the so called "war on terror" never had the right to challenge their detentions in a court of law. A recent unequivocal ruling by the Supreme Court concerning the importance of the Geneva Conventions and U.S. law as applied to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay injected a cautious note of optimism. The Military Commissions Act destroyed that faint hope because it substituted military personnel for legal attorneys and negated the sense of the Supreme Court decision.

Congressional promises to restore habeas corpus have melted away. Habeas corpus, the right of detainees to challenge their detention, is one of the most basic tenets of a democracy, a cherished principle that has been honored for hundreds of years. But President Bush has decided that these prisoners do not deserve hearings. Those who question these tactics are accused of supporting terrorism.

Four retired military chief prosecutors from the Navy, the Marines and the Army have pointed out that "withholding prisoners' access to courts feeds the Al Queda propaganda machine and gives other governments suggestions for imprisoning Americans when the situation indicated such actions."

There have been calls to restore habeas corpus, but democratic leaders have not yet found a way to publicize the issue, develop constituency support or bring the issue to a vote. It is time to stand on principle. We cannot allow democracy to die.

Fortunately, an encouraging change has occurred. In autumn 2001, Clive Stafford Smith, an English lawyer with American citizenship, decided to help Guantanamo prisoners by upholding the cause of civil liberties and the rule of law. His determination was stoked by his distaste for the Bush administration's disregard for basic human rights after 9/11.

His ardent advocacy for this cause influenced other lawyers and gained the support of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. There are now 400 lawyers who belong to the Guantanamo Bay Bar Association, working on a pro bono basis.

These lawyers come from a wide variety of backgrounds and a range of experiences. They are Republicans or Democrats, army veterans or conscientious objectors. They all share an attachment to civil liberties.

It took many years for the group to form. First Mr. Stafford Smith, outraged by President Bush's original executive order on unlimited detentions, began to contact fellow lawyers, hoping to launch an organization of sympathetic souls. At first, reactions were slow, even icy. There was an expressed fear of being labeled unpatriotic, or even worse, befriending terrorists. But the initial trio of lawyers persevered.

Only after a court case did Guantanamo agree to reveal prisoners' identities and, finally, a list of detainees was compiled. Then the U.S. Department of Justice found ways to block lawyers from entering Guantanamo. In addition, interpreters had to be found.

One of the lawyers, Thomas Wilner said, "It is like traveling down into hell. It took two and a half years to gain access to my clients. My 12 visits took me into a world that flouts the principles on which the U.S. is based. I could not imagine that my country would engage in torture, humiliation and destruction of other human beings in this way."

Originally visits were permitted at any hour from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., seven days a week. At present, hours and days of visits have been cut back from 65 hours of contact to 30 hours and fewer days. The Guantanamo authorities "have done everything they can to hamper and delay our work as lawyers," said another attorney. Petitions to see physicians are often disregarded.

Army interrogators claim to be lawyers, confusing prisoners and making them suspicious. They are told that their lawyers are homosexuals or Jews and sexual provocation by female interrogators is encouraged, again to spread confusion and distrust. Some attorneys use DVDs with pictures of detainees' families to encourage greater confidence and ease in speaking with their visitors.

Three hundred prisoners have been released because of the efforts of these determined lawyers. Although U.S. courts have held up their appeals, they have turned to diplomacy. By contacting embassies or the governments of the detainees' own countries they have been able to extricate some prisoners from the horrors of Guantanamo.

Obviously, lawyers are aware that the best way to assist their clients is to speak of these atrocities. But censorship and threats of heavy prison terms have frustrated their efforts.

In addition, a new restrictive tactic has been devised by the Department of Justice. Even when, at times, government officers at commission hearings do actually agree that some detainees are innocent, government attorneys will ask for the hearings to be repeated, often a number of times. This method is utilized to change the final decision and hold the prisoner guilty in order to forestall any movement to obtain justice. So at present an estimated 400 to 500 prisoners still remain at Guantanamo.

There is a glimmer of hope, however. Congress has finally begun to take notice.

California's Sen. Dianne Feinstein has introduced legislation to close the facility and transfer the prisoners to more conventional detention centers in the U.S., either for trial or for repatriation, with guarantees that no torture or other mistreatment will be used. This bill is critically important and should be enacted as quickly as possible. We must contact our legislators to pressure them to support the bill and act immediately.

Florence Gold, a Riverdale resident, is the co-chair of the Ban Depleted Uranium Coalition and a frequent contributor to Point of View.

Point of view is an occasional column open to all readers.

This is part of the July 5, 2007 online edition of The Riverdale Press.

Have an opinion on this matter? We'd like to hear from you. Click here.