Deal or No Deal? NO DEAL Mr. President!

March 03, 2010  |  Posted by Danielle Belton

Sen. Lindsey Graham seems to think our issue with the prison at Guantanamo Bay is purely a "real estate" problem.

According to various media reports, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is in talks with the South Carolina senator about closing the prison. Sen. Graham says he wants to end Gitmo's tragic legacy, yet his ideas on just how to do that seem to be little more than that old business truism of "location, location, location."

Sen. Graham's conditions for the closure are disturbing.

He's for indefinite detention and against criminal trials for detainees -- even though the New York-based trial of would-be subway bomber Najibullah Zazi proved that our civilian system works best. He's instead backing the heavily flawed and unsuccessful military commissions system, a system that has only convicted three suspects since 2001 and has been besieged by legal issues. Graham says he is for ending "Gitmo," as long as all the hyporcitical, hyper political and unethcial policies and practices surrounding Gitmo remain. He's proposing Gitmo by another name and address -- but it's still Gitmo. Methinks Graham doesn't get what the real issue is about the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Yes, it's a symbol of torture that needs to be closed. But what difference does it make to close Gitmo, only to continue the same wrong-headed, immoral policies that are affiliated with it?

Our country was founded on the belief that it is wrong for the government to detain a person without charge. It's called habeas corpus and it's the principle pillar in our Democracy. It's that notion that you can't just be hauled off to jail and thrown into a dark hole, never to be heard of again. There must be charges. There must be due process. There must be public trials. But again, conservatives like Graham are charging that somehow terrorists are different. That because they claim they are warriors and they claim they are fighting for a higher cause we must take that into consideration and honor it -- ignoring the fact that most terrorists we've tried and prosecuted were often wannabe mass murderers who manipulate religion -- not "holy warriors." These are individuals, not countries. They aren't representing any fight bigger than themselves. When our troops are sent out to fight in the field they have the United States backing them up. When a lone gunman, bomber or murderer heads out, spreading fear in the name of religion, they are backed (just barely) by a pack disparate ideologues seeking to exploit these isolated actions in an effort to push their tortured agenda.

Graham wants to ignore our constitution. He wants to hold people indefinitely. He wants to ignore habeas corpus. Why? Does he not understand that the perversion of our laws is what made Gitmo the lightning rod it is today? That if we keep in place the same practices we will have proven to the world that we've learned absolutely nothing? The problem with Gitmo was how the prison operated outside of the rule of law. So Graham's solution is the change the address, but keep the lawlessness? We can't go for that. We can't agree with that. If that's the best deal the Obama administration can muster to close the prison at Guantanamo, we say there should be no deal at all. If we're going to close the prison, if we're going to end the legacy of Gitmo, we have to end the broken policies that came with it.

A gulag by any other name is still a gulag.

blog comments powered by Disqus