Impunity Watch: North America

Closure of Guantanamo Delayed for Many Reasons

The New York Times reports that the Bush Administration has experienced logistical problems recently in its efforts to shrink the population of the widely-criticized military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Pentagon officials saythey hope to decrease the number of detainees held in Guantanamo by as many as 150 men. This would leave approximately 210 detainees still at the military prison. It has been widely reported that the administration eventually hopes to close the detainment facility, which has been vehemently criticized worldwide because of the reported abuses of detainees that have occurred within its walls.

Diplomatic, legal and political hurdles have collided and created problems for the US in its efforts to release detainees that are not considered to be too dangerous. Included among these challenges is the fact that many countries have been unwilling to grant returning detainees access to return home. Furthermore, there are serious concerns about detainees returning to countries with questionable human rights records.

According to Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at Duke School of Law, and Stephen Yagman, a civil rights attorney who has represented detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, “…closing this facility likely would mean that the prisoners would be shipped to military prisons throughout the world, often run by other countries. Conditions likely would be just as bad, if not worse, and American courts probably would have no jurisdiction to protect the rights of the detainees.”

To illustrate this point further, at this time Chief Justice John Roberts is considering an appeal by a Guantanamo detainee to immediately cancel his relocation back to his home country of Algeria. Ahmed Belbacha argues that he faces an imminent risk of arrest, torture or death by both Islamist radicals and the Algerian government if sent back to his home country. The Justice Department has ardently opposed any judicial order that would prohibit the transfer of freed detainees, saying, “it is in no one’s interest to detain enemy combatants longer than is necessary.”

Critics claim that the US has complicated matters by insisting on rigid requirements for the return of detained enemy combatants. These requirements include, further detainment, close scrutiny upon release and interception of the former detainees’ communications.

In a statement by President Bush from June 2006, he explains the difficulties of closing Guantanamo.

THE PRESIDENT: I'd like to close Guantanamo, but I also recognize that we're holding some people that are darn dangerous, and that we better have a plan to deal with them in our courts. And the best way to handle -- in my judgment, handle these types of people is through our military courts. And that's why we're waiting on the Supreme Court to make a decision.
Part of closing Guantanamo is to send some folks back home, like we've been doing. And the State Department is in the process of encouraging countries to take the folks back. Of course, sometimes we get criticized for sending some people out of Guantanamo back to their home country because of the nature of the home country. It's a little bit of a Catch-22. But we're working through this.
No question, Guantanamo sends a signal to some of our friends -- provides an excuse, for example, to say the United States is not upholding the values that they're trying to encourage other countries to adhere to. And my answer to them is, is that we are a nation of laws and rule of law. These people have been picked up off the battlefield and they're very dangerous. And so we have that balance between customary justice, the typical system, and one that will be done in the military courts. And that's what we're waiting for.
Eventually, these people will have trials, and they will have counsel and they will be represented in a court of law. I say, "these people," those who are not sent back to their mother countries. You know, we've sent a lot of people home already. I don't think the American people know that, nor do the citizens of some of the countries that are concerned about Guantanamo.

For more on this topic, see:

The New York Times – Hurdles Frustrate Effort to Shrink Guantanamo – 8/9/07

Think Progress – Powell: Close Guantanamo Now, Restore Habeas – 6/10/07 [Colin Powell interview]

Human Rights Watch – U.S.: Bush Should Close Guantanamo Now – 5/9/06

The White House – Press Conference of the President – 6/14/06

Duke University News – Don’t Close Guantanamo Without Protecting the Rights of Detainees – 7/1/05

U.S. Marines squad leader first to be convicted of murdering Iraqi man

"Congratulations we've just gotten away with murder."  This quote was taken from a New York Times article that ran on August 3, 2007.  The person who spoke these words was Navy Hospitalman Melson Bacos as he testified in the court martial of Sergeant Lawrence G. Hutchins III of the United States Marines.  It seems that Sgt. Hutchins did not in fact get away with murder.  Sgt. Hutchins was charged with numerous offenses including premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit murder, making false statement, kidnapping and larceny.  The New York Times, however, clarified that the jury apparently made up of fellow ex-Iraqi stationed marines instead convicted him of un-premeditated murder and may issue any sentence they see fit, including life in prison with or without parole, but they cannot give the death penalty.  According to the Boston Herald in an article of the same date St. Hutchins was the leader and shooter in a night patrol gone wrong.  The Boston Herald article stated that it was during a night time patrol to kidnap and kill a suspected insurgent that the group was unable to locate the suspect and instead grabbed Hashim Ibrahim Awad from a neighboring house.  52 year old Awad was dragged to a nearby ditch and shot to death in the head.  The New York Times article again gave more detail and stated that the "shot reduced the man's head and face to a bloody pulp to avoid identification". . . [and] "was part of what is known as a 'dead check' to make sure previous gunshots had killed him."  After the shooting the men, according to both articles, attempted to cover up the murder by placing a shovel and AK-47 next to Awad's body in order to make it appear as if he was trying to bury a bomb.

The idea that the shooting was part of the process known as "dead checking" was also raised in the court martial of Corporal Trent Thomas who is one of the other eight men to be tried for the killing.  The North America desk of Impunity Watch ran a post on Thomas' trial when it was first beginning and one of the memorable quotes from a witness in the case was from Corporal Saul H. Lopezromo who supported the statement that Thomas was acting in response to orders when Awad was shot and that the action was consistent with their routine of "dead checking." "If Marines entered a house where a man was wounded, instead of checking to see whether he needed medical aid, they shot him to make sure he was dead...if somebody is worth shooting once, they're worth shooting twice."  The Boston Herald article provided an update on Cpl. Thomas'.  Thomas, who is from Madison, Illinois, was not sentenced to any time in jail but was reduced in rank and given a bad conduct discharge.  The Boston Herald and the New York Times both acknowledged that four other lower ranking men accepted plea bargain in exchange for lower sentences of one to eight years in prison.  Speaking for his client Hutchins’s lawyer was reported by the Boston Herald as arguing his client participated in the murder "because his own officers had set a poor leadership example and given approval for marines to use violence in capturing and interrogating suspected insurgents."  A similar defense had been used in Thomas's trial. Lopezromo also testified that "his unit began routinely beating Iraqis after officers ordered them to 'crank up the violence level'" back in 2006.  It is unclear at this point whether these officers who supposedly issued such orders are facing charges as well.

For More Information on this topic see the following sources:

"Massachusetts Marine Convicted of Murdering Iraqi"  Boston Herald Online/Associated Press:  http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=1014967 , Aug.3, 2007

"Marine is Guilty of Unpremeditated Murder of an Iraqi Man"  The New York Times Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/world/middleeast/03abuse.html?_r=1&oref=slogin , Aug. 3, 2007

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/15/marines.iraq.ap/index.htm  

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/03/hamdaniya/index.html?iref=newssearch  

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/03/marines.iraqshooting.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

Senate Votes to Temporarily Expand US Spy Agencies Warrantless Suveillance

In a temporary victory for the White House, the Senate voted in favor of a Republican endorsed plan to change the federal government’s terrorist surveillance laws and expand the power of US spy agencies (including the National Security Agency) to monitor the communications (phone calls and emails) of foreign terrorist suspects without a court order. The 60 to 28 vote was instantly criticized by civil rights and privacy groups as an illegal invasion of the rights of private citizens. President Bush placed a significant amount of emphasis on the congressional vote, and had threatened earlier to hold Congress into its planned summer recess until it reached the approval he was seeking for his widely contested surveillance program. The legislation is expected to reach the House in a matter of days.

The expanded program allows government surveillance authorities to capture the communication of people within the United States who are communicating either by phone or email to others outside of the country. The surveillance program is criticized because no court order or warrant is required to conduct the monitoring of the communications. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a 30-year-old statute that “prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power,” already grants broad powers to US spy agencies. But, the FISA statute requires the agency to obtain a warrant to intercept and evaluate the seized communications. The White House has criticized this requirement for judicial authorization, voicing the concern that broad latitude should be afforded to the spy agencies for the sake of national security. Spokesman Tony Fratto commended the Senate vote and urged the House to follow suit, saying that the legislation provides “our [US] intelligence professionals [with] the essential tools they need to protect our nation.”

Many Democratic leaders shared their disappointment with the Senate vote. "My Republican colleagues chose to rubber-stamp a flawed administration proposal that fails to provide the accountability needed in the light of the administration's past mismanagement of key tools in the war on terror," said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). But, the Democrats pointed toward language of the Republican plan that requires lawmakers to reevaluate the surveillance program in six-months.

Sen. Joseph Liberman (I-Conn.) joined the 43 Republicans in support of the expanded surveillance plan, arguing, “We're at war. The enemy wants to attack us. This is not the time to strive for legislative perfection.” [emphasis added].

Privacy advocates attacked Senate Democrats, claiming that they had granted the government more authority than it previously exercised in the secret surveillance program undertaken by spy agencies following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Under the 2001 surveillance program, warrantless surveillance (that without judicial oversight/authorization) could only be carried out if there was “a reason to believe that one party to the call was a member of or affiliated with al-Qaeda or a related terrorist organization.” No such requirement exists in the most recent bill. “Whenever the president says the word 'terrorism,' they [Democrats] roll over and play dead," said Caroline Fredrickson, Washington legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

For more on this topic, see:

Washington Post - Senate Votes To Expand Warrantless Surveillance – 8/4/07

MSNBC – Feds Appeal Ruling Against Wiretap Program – 8/18/06

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold – On the Presidents Warrantless Wiretapping Program – 2/7/06

ACLU.org - ACLU v. NSA: The Challenge to Illegal Spying

Electronic Frontier Foundation – The NSA’s Warrantless Domestic Surveillance

Federation of American Scientists – Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

New Online Site Provides Long Awaited Reunions and Revisits Shameful U.S. History

1967 marked the height of institutionalization of the mentally and developmentally disabled in the United States.  At that time at least 100,000 children were housed in the 162 state institutions located across the country according to Professor Charlie Larkin of the University of Minnesota.  According to CNN Professor Larkin studies the history of institutionalization and quoted him as saying "conditions could be horrific.  Residents were sometimes restrained in leather cuffs or strait jackets, overly sedated, isolated for long periods of time, and in many cases, sterilized.  Many had little or no contact with their families."  This quote came from an article published on CNN's website and while the acts referred to in these quotes occurred mainly during the 1950s and 1960s, the effects of that time are still impacting many people today.  In the article titled "Families get help finding loved ones lost in institutions" Jeff Daly promotes a new online site where institutionalized family members can possibly be located and reunited with friends and siblings who are looking for them.  To understand, it was not uncommon for parents to send their "different" children to one of these institutions.

For Jeff Daly his sister was sent away when she was nearly three years old.  When Daly asked his parents each night where she was they simply told him to not ask about her.  Molly was born with a club foot and a lazy eye and was ultimately diagnosed as mentally retarded.  Bill Lynch, executive director of the Oregon Council on Developmental Disabilities, said. "There was a lot of shame on the part of these families.  There was such a huge stigma to disability. We're still getting over that.  Many who try to reconnect do so against the wishes of the parents of the disabled child, who still feel that shame."  While at the time sending loved ones to an institution seemed to be what the medical community considered to be appropriate, in the 1970s many institutions were closed down after lawsuits were brought based on inhumane treatment and experimental practices.  For example a documentary titled "Unforgotten" was created in order to document the closing of the infamous Willowbrook State Institution on Staten Island in 1971.  To see an interview with one of Willowbrook's more well-known patients due to his work with Geraldo Rivera who actually first brought attention to Willowbrook.  In an article by C. Steven Holburn, PhD, a research scientist at the Institute for Basic Research, "Bernard Carabello, who was institutionalized at Willowbrook for 18 years because he had cerebral palsy and now works as a consumer advocate for the State of New York [said]:  'It was like living in hell. There was no privacy. It was like living in a concentration camp. I've been beat up so many times when I lived at Willowbrook. I got beat with sticks, key chains, keys. They kicked my head through the wall. I mean, you name it, I had it. I always thought I was going to die in the institution.'"

After the closing of many institutions most of the residents were transferred to smaller community homes.  For the siblings of many of these people they have had no idea what has become of their family members.  In Daly's case he did not find out that his sister Molly had been sent to a state institution until he was in his twenties.  It was another fifty years until he was able to locate his sister.  Daly documented his search on film and since its release he has heard an outcry from those who are still looking for their family members.  With the help of national advocacy organization for the mentally a developmentally disabled, The Arc, others like Daly will have a better chance of finding their loved ones.  The FinalFamily Registry website will hold the names of those looking for family members and who they are looking for and can be cross referenced with caregivers who have patients that might have family looking for them.

 

For more information on this topic see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZFTQ3_04i0  Documentary Excerpt

http://www.ohiosilc.org/news/threads_v3_n2/2000sum9.html  

https://www.thearclink.org/findfamily/

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/08/01/wheres.molly/index.html  

http://www.hiddenfromhistory.org/duplessis.htm

SENATE PASSES DISPUTED CHILDREN’S HEALTH BILL – OVERCOME VETO

A disputed bipartisan bill that will provide health insurance for millions of children from low-income family passed the Senate in a 68 to 31 vote. The strong majority vote is more than enough to overcome the veto that was repeatedly threatened by President Bush. The child health care plan will augment the spending on the insurance plan by $35 billion over the next five years. The White House has said on numerous occasions that the health care plan “goes too far in federalizing health care.” Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, a major sponsor of the current bill and a lawmaker who assisted in creating the health care program 10 years ago, said, “Covering these children is worth every cent.” The House had already passed a significantly larger bill that would increase spending by $50 billion in a 225 to 204 vote. The more expensive program proposed by the House has been used as a means to negotiate the program that will be passed into federal law. The strong commitment of the Democratic Party is a convincing assurance that a compromise is likely to occur before September 30th—the date at which the present program will expire.

Both of the programs, the larger bill passed by the House and the reduced measure passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, will raise federal excise tobacco taxes to fund the health insurance plan. The tobacco tax would be increased by $1 a pack by the Senate bill and 84 cents by the House measure. The current federal excise tax on tobacco products is 39 cents per pack.

Additionally, the House bill would dramatically cut the federal subsidies paid out to insurance companies who provide private health care plans to those who qualify for Medicare. Many Democrats in the House claim that these plans, which serve approximately 1/5 of the 43 million Medicare recipients, are “overpaid.” The Senate bill does not touch on Medicare expenditures. The program, while it survives from the use of federal funds gained through taxation, is not a socialized medical plan. Private physicians provide medical care through private insurance companies.

In response to the extension and increase in spending for the children’s health care program, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan stated, “…[W]e have a moral obligation to provide health care coverage for the millions of uninsured children. Health care should be a right, not a privilege, and covering every child is an important step toward this goal.” There were voices of concern resonating on the Senate floor. “If you want to go to government-run, socialistic medicine, this is it, this is the way it’s going to happen. Even my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle are buying this deal,” said Senate Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi.

The Secretary of health and human services, Michael Leavitt, responded to the passage of the bill, saying that it will endanger the health care for millions of low-income children because “the president will have no choice but to veto” the proposed healthcare program. If the President Bush vetoes the future program, the bill is sure to become a central issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

For more on this topic, see:

The New York Times – Senate Passes Children’s Health Bill, 68-31 – 8/3/07

BBC - Senate Passes Child Health Bill – 8/3/07

CNN – Partisan Battle Brewing Over Children’s Health Insurance – 8/1/07