February 20, 2017. The inauguration of Donald Trump brings with it a time of uncertainty for liberties, here in the United States and around the world. See my previous post.
Donald Trump, now the official candidate of the Republican Party, presents a great number of concerns when it comes to sustaining liberty and freedom for all. After such a long primary process, the two major political parties have nominated the two most candidates with the most negatives. However, where the concerns about Hillary Clinton are more with judgement and some poor decisions made, the concerns with Trump are in the areas of Constitutional rights and even the Geneva Conventions. 
Trump's oppositions to the First Amendment are just one example of his war on the Constitution. He proposes many controversial ideas including the wall along the Mexican border and the round-up and deportation of millions of the undocumented, likely without due process of law. While Trump says he loves the Constitution, that love goes only so far as it doesn't stop him from doing whatever he wants to do.
Syria is a crises that tears at our hearts when we hear of innocent civilians massacred, most recently gassed to death. Over 100,000 have died, a number equivalent to the population of my home town of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
With this landscape, we come to September 2013 and the question of Syria. President Obama looked like he'd announce a plan of definitive action, likely a missile strike against some Syrian military facility in retribution for stepping over the line with the use of deadly gas. But, then he pulled back and tossed the hot potato to Congress. Was this an act of an indecisive leader or a shrewd politician who knew he'd get a 80% negative rating on any decision he could make? Was he wise to seek political consensus?
Despite President Obama’s commitment to close prisons holding detainees suspected to be terrorists, the closure of such facilities is coming along quite slowly. Under the Bush Administration, detaining suspected terrorists without charges was par for the course. The hope was that under an Obama Administration, these facilities would be expeditiously closed. But, closures have been slow coming.Still, other detention facilities remain open. One of the unresolved issues involves where to move the most dangerous of the suspects.
Granted, individuals suspected of being terrorists or plotting acts of terrorism, or supporting known terrorists, should be detained. It’s the practice of rounding up anyone who might be a terrorist that violates the spirit of law and due process.
As long as America still operates these facilities, we are not the nation founded on basic human rights that we proclaim to be.
Last week, President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney presented two divergent view of the interrogation of suspected terrorists. While our President is calling for an end of anything that could be considered torture, the former Vice President advocated for "enhanced interrogations." Cheney claimed that these techniques were legal and have saved lives. He even defended the use of waterboarding.
How will the Obama administration redress the human rights violations of the Bush Administration's policy of extraordinary rendition?Today’s New York Times reports a hearing next week in San Francisco regarding a lawsuit filed on behalf of five detainees against Jeppesen Dataplan, a subsidiary of the Boeing Company, that arranged rendition flights that delivered detainees to nations where they were later tortured.
In the article, it states:
“The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in the Federal District Court in San Francisco in May 2007. It was dismissed last February after the Bush administration asserted the ‘state secrets privilege,’ claiming that the disclosure of information in the case could damage national security.
"In the appeal, to be heard Monday by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the civil liberties union argues that the government has engaged in an inappropriate blanket use of the privilege and that the case should be allowed to proceed.”
So, will the Obama administration end this blanket use of the claim of state secrets? Will there be positive movement by this administration in breaking from the past administration’s use of rendition leading to “out-sourced” torture? Let’s hope that change has come.
Reference: “Claims of Torture Abroad Face Test Monday in Court,” New York Times, February 6, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06torture.html?ref=todayspaper
I was encouraged by evidence of a New Dawn reading about the groundswell within the US Senate to restore lost liberties and bring back the rule of law. Extraordinary Rendition: the apprehension of a person on suspicion of charges and deportation to another country, typically without any trial or finding of guilt.
Since 9/11, the CIA has been linked to the rendering of hundreds of incidents of extraordinary rendition. Individuals suspected either of being terrorists or of aiding and abetting terrorist organizations were deported to countries including Syria, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, and Uzbekistan.
Two weeks ago, a story of one such case was featured on Fresh Air (on NPR). An innocent man, Maher Arar, a telecommunications engineer with dual Canadian and Syrian citizenship, was deported to a Syrian prison on suspicion of being connected with terrorism. His crime: he had rented an apartment listing as a reference a person allegedly linked to a terrorist group.
Thanks to extraordinary rendition, the government, like Pontius Pilate, can keep its hands clean. Leave it to the Republicans to outsource torture!
There is a time, not so long ago, when it would be unheard of that America would deport someone to a foreign nation to be imprisoned and tortured.
In the case of Mr. Arar, he was tortured and imprisoned for nearly one year. He was released due protests by his wife and a Canadian government determination that he was not connected with any terrorists.
We’ve seen the Bush administration after 9/11 use fear of terrorism to enact erosion of our constitutional rights. Now even American citizens making international calls may find there conversations being listed to by the Feds on an unwarranted wiretap. And God help you if you are an American citizen of Middle Eastern background and your name is the same as, or similar to, someone on the “no fly” list.
But of all these attacks on the constitution, which is no less than the erosion of what our nation once stood for as a beacon of freedom, extraordinary rendition is perhaps the most grievous offence.
For anyone who loves liberty, the preservation of basic human rights is utmost. And the depravation of life or liberty without due process of law violates basic human rights. On this point, I believe that Libertarians and other who cherish freedom should never have to apologize.
Also, it is a clear violation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to return people to their home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured.
The Administration talks about how Saddam was evil for using torture and imprisonment. They say the same about Iran, Syria, North Korea and other nations who “support the terrorists.” Yet the same Administration is responsible for exporting someone merely suspected of being a terrorists to one of the very nations they condemn.
Yes, at the RNC, speakers made fun of those who would grant due process to suspected terrorists. But we must reply that the Republicans are simply wrong on this point. No threat is so great that we should sanction torture by our forces or by others through extraordinary rendition.
What of our presidential candidates?
The “old” John McCain -- himself tortured as a prisoner of war -- used to speak boldly against any use of torture, and he did recommit to rejecting torture in last night's presidential debate. Still, after the RNC rhetoric, I can’t be sure that the “new” McCain still talks the talk. Barack Obama has also opposed torture, but does not have the gut distaste of torture that the "old" McCain had.
But with either candidate, change is likely.
The Change We Need
Our next President must reject the Bush administration’s actions that permitted imprisonment without charges, torture and extraordinary rendition. With these policies, we have become that which we most deplore! How can the US differentiate itself from the terrorists and states that sponsor terrorism if the US allows these practices?
Granted, the terrorists’ threat is real. As I write, there are those that would attack us here at home or abroad. But in our efforts to stop the terrorists, our government cannot stoop to violating human rights. Period.
For an overview of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture
